The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections

Turns out Richard Dawkins' watchmaker has 20/20 vision after all.

The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem. In other words, the suit itself is the proof of the existence of the intelligent creator of the suit, no other evidence is necessary. There are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process. How to precisely define such levels is not our topic of discussion. It is clear, however, that a suit and poem by Robert Frost, and a living bacterium, are certainly well over that line.

The entire plot of the classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on this obvious principle. At a dramatic moment in the film, when a rectangular monolith is discovered buried on the moon, it is clear to those who discover it (and accepted as absolutely logical and reasonable by everyone watching the movie) that this is unmistakable proof of alien life. After all, a precisely measured monolith couldn't possibly have made itself or "evolved naturally." The rest of the film is about the search for the aliens who constructed and buried the monolith in the first place.

Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?

The human body is an incredible piece of machinery; who put it together? It certainly required a great deal more sophistication to build a human being than to construct a rectangular monolith. The existence of highly sophisticated living organisms implies a highly sophisticated designer of these organisms. Believers call this designer, the Creator or God. What could possibly be the flaw in such an argument?

Nobody Disagrees With "The Argument from Design"

Before we actually deal with the objections raised by atheists and skeptics, I want to stress: Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. In the debate between skeptics and believers the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms? Skeptics raise two basic objections to applying the Argument from Design to the world of living systems:

1) ideas found in the writings of a highly influential 18th century Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume, and

Dr. Frank Sonleitner and Dr. Julian Baggini claim that Hume's philosophy invalidates any attempt to apply the Argument from Design to the living world:

Hume, in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, shows that the Argument from Design ... is illogical and contrived. Norman Kemp Smith, late professor of metaphysics at Edinburgh, in his introduction to Hume, explicitly points out that organisms are not like designed, manufactured objects. (Sonleitner, NCSE Website)

Furthermore, as David Hume points out, we can only hypothesize [a designer of a watch], because we know by experience what the cause of watches are. We have no experience of causes of the universe, so we are not justified in making any assumption about who or what they might be. 1(Baggini)

Hume's argument is simple; we can know clearly that a suit is made by a tailor, because we have experience of suits being made by tailors. However:

Will any man tell me with a serious contrivance that an orderly universe must arise from some thought and art ... because we have experience of it? To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite, that we had experience of the origin of worlds...2 (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could seriously consider Hume's argument as having any relevance to the matter at hand. We are not discussing the "causes of the universe" or the "origin of worlds," i.e., things of which we have no experience.3 We are talking about highly complex living organisms that are meticulously studied, catalogued, and experimented on day and night by scientists all over the world. Let me give a few simple examples.

The Filter and the Pump — Most Definitely Within Our Experience

Suppose someone is unfortunate enough to suffer from impaired kidneys and must be hooked up to a dialysis machine several times a week. In a moment of frustration he barges into the R & D department of a biomedical engineering firm and demands that they manufacture an artificial kidney that can be inserted where a normal kidney goes. The sympathetic engineer tells him that our current technology is unable to produce such a device and the best we have to offer is the dialysis machine.

Experience teaches us that highly sophisticated filtering devices do not make themselves, any more than suits make themselves.

It would be foolish to suggest that the construction of the filtering device we call a kidney is out of our experience when we actually build kidneys; we just call them dialysis machines. They perform the exact same function as real kidneys, which are essentially nothing more than highly sophisticated filters, except that we experience and understand them well enough to know that they are primitive compared to an actual kidney. Experience teaches us that highly sophisticated filtering devices do not make themselves, any more than suits make themselves. Clearly, Hume's argument is not applicable.

There is another mechanical device that is well within our experience: the electric pump. Electric pumps do not make themselves. The human heart is nothing more and nothing less than an electric pump. It operates on the exact same principles of physics as every other electric pump on the planet Earth. Our bio-medical engineering firms also build "primitive" pumps to replace the heart. It is absurd to invoke Hume's argument when we are discussing the heart.

The kidney and heart are just two of many examples of systems that exist in the living world of which we have experience. We could have mentioned the navigational systems of birds and sea turtles, the sonar of bats, and the electrical generating systems of eels and other animals to name just a few. The rational conclusion must be that these incredibly complex systems could only have been designed and constructed by a super-intelligent creator. Eliminating Hume from the picture brings us to the second argument that skeptics use to claim that the Argument from Design does not apply to the world of living systems: Darwinian Evolution. I do not want to spend much time on this topic. For argument's sake I would concede the fact of Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Done!

Before Darwin even Richard Dawkins could not deny the existence of a Creator

Before the theory of evolution, however, one needed an enormous amount of almost fanatical determination not to believe in a creator. Remember, Darwinian evolution does not invalidate the Argument from Design; it simply offers an alternative explanation for the functional complexity of living systems. Christopher Hitchens begrudgingly concedes that before Darwin, the "default position" of a creator was reasonable:

Before Charles Darwin revolutionized our entire concept of our origins ... many scientists and philosophers and mathematicians took what might be called the default position and ... professed ... that the order and predictability of the universe seemed indeed to imply a designer... This compromise was a logical and rational one for its time...4

Richard Dawkins also admits to the obvious truth of this point. However, unlike Hitchens (a non-scientist) who downplays pre-Darwin belief in God by describing it as a "default position" and a "compromise," Dawkins states categorically that before Darwin he "could not imagine" being an atheist:

I feel more in common with the Reverend William Paley5 than I do with the distinguished modern philosopher, a well known atheist, with whom I once discussed the matter at dinner. I said I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of the Species was published. "What about Hume?" replied the philosopher. "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?" I asked. "He didn't" said the philosopher, "Why does it need any special explanation?" Paley knew it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts, my philosophical companion knew it too.6

Dawkins tells us that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." 7 However, we shall soon see that just as Hume is irrelevant to our question, so too Darwin is irrelevant to our question (regarding the existence of a Creator).

The Amazing Microscopic Digital Information System

In River Out of Eden, Dawkins describes the intricate functioning of genetic coding in the living cell:

After Watson and Crick we know that genes themselves ... are living strings of pure digital information. What is more they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact discs, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers ... but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. Our genetic system, which is the universal system for all life on the planet is digital to the core ... DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do ... DNA messages ... are ... pure digital code.8

Dr. Paul Davies on the same subject:

In a living organism we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to an incredible degree ... the problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature "go digital?" 9

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, echoes Dawkins' and Davies' description of the genetic coding in the cell, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." 10

Darwinian Evolution simply begs the question

For the truth-seeking individual, the very best that Darwinian evolution can tell us is the following: Once you have in place a fantastically complex piece of molecular machinery called a living cell, which has at it's core an astonishingly sophisticated self-replicating system, which is based on the storage, retrieval, and decoding of enormous amounts of pure digital information – given enough time – the interactions between this nanotool filled organism, its "uncannily computer-like" genetic code and its environment (interactions we call "natural selection") are able to produce an astounding variety of forms of biological organisms. All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?

All varieties of life are possible – if, and only if – this amazing piece of machinery is in place. How did it get there?

Lest anyone have the impression that the compelling and profoundly significant nature of this line of reasoning can only be appreciated by those with inclinations toward religion, here is distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel (who describes himself as being "just as much an outsider to religion as Richard Dawkins"):

The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties ... since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem ... we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back a step: how did such a thing come into existence?11

The Argument from Design does not disappear with Darwin; it is simply refocused with a vengeance

As it turns out, Darwinian evolution is not, as the skeptic would have us believe, a testimony to what can emerge from undirected processes; it is a testimony to the unimaginably awesome capabilities and potential contained in the first living cell and its genetic code. A paradigm-shifting insight emerges from all this: Contrary to popular belief, not only is Darwinian evolution not the cause or explanation of the staggering complexity of life on this planet; Darwinian evolution itself is a process which is the result of the staggering complexity of life on this planet. Human beings who are seeking the truth about the existence of a Creator should stop wasting their time and energy arguing about Archaeopteryx and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is all beside the point. Darwinian evolution most definitely does not provide an escape hatch from the challenge that Dawkins articulated to his atheist philosopher colleague: "How [do we] explain the organized complexity of the living world?" All existing life is nothing more than a variation on a theme. All the "organized complexity" of life is a variation on the "organized complexity" of the first living organism.

Darwinian evolution itself is a process which is the result of the staggering complexity of life on this planet.

This is what Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at New York University, Dr. Robert Shapiro, meant when he said that "The difference between a simple mixture of chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant." The Argument from Design does not disappear with Darwin; it is simply refocused with a vengeance:

What stands out as the central unsolved puzzle in the scientific account of life – is how the first microbe came to exist. Peering into life's innermost workings serves only to deepen the mystery. The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind ... ingenious marvels of construction and control, with a fine-tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering... The problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature "go digital?"... How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable of only pushing and pulling their immediate neighbors, cooperate to form something as ingenious as a living organism? (Dr. Paul Davies)

The only relevant question is: How did life begin? Darwin has nothing at all to say on the subject. Darwinian evolution does not even pretend to address the issue. Chance, as we've seen in a previous chapter, is not an answer. Science simply has no answer. Just as the suit itself is the proof of the tailor, and the poem itself is proof of the poet, the astoundingly complex microbe itself, with its fully digital software, is the proof of its creator. The who's-buried-in-Grant's-tomb, right-in-front-of-your-eyes, wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee, it's-staring-you-in-the-face answer is that life is created.

In the final analysis, the atheist's denial of God,12 despite his propagandist smokescreen to the contrary, has nothing to do with Science. We have shown clearly that the two giant battleships in the scientific arsenal of the atheist, Darwinian evolution and Origin of Life, are nothing more than floundering, leaky rowboats (if even that much). Evolution is irrelevant, and Origin of Life clearly points to a creator. As it turns out, the ultimate battle between believer and non-believer will not be fought in the scientific arena at all. Stripped of the mighty sword of Darwinism and his Scientific Naturalism body armor, the atheist retreats and barricades himself in his ideological version of the Alamo. "Dawkins' Last Stand" will be fought with the only weapon remaining: a philosophical argument that he calls "The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit."

This argument's intriguing name derives from the following analogy used by Sir Fred Hoyle to describe the extreme improbability of a chance origin of the first living organism on earth:

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.13

Before we present Dawkins' actual argument, let's summarize Hoyle's argument and its logical consequences. Sir Fred is telling us that the probability of life originating on earth by chance is as probable as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747. Therefore, if you find yourself face to face with a fully assembled Boeing 747 you can be absolutely certain it was not assembled by a tornado; it was assembled by an Intelligent Designer.

The probability of life originating on earth by chance is as probable as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747.

Carrying the analogy to its logical conclusion: If you find yourself face to face with a living bacterium (which is at least as functionally complex as a 747), you can be absolutely certain it was not assembled by random forces "sweeping through" a bunch of chemicals. It was assembled in the same manner as a 747, namely, by an intelligent designer. It's really a very simple and easy to understand analogy. Somehow, Dawkins manages to turn it into an impenetrable smokescreen.

And now Dawkins:

Actually the argument from improbability properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit ... Hoyle said the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrap yard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747... However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the ultimate 747.14

Dawkins further clarifies the idea:

Seen clearly, intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. Once again, this is because the designer himself immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin... Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's Pipe [a type of flower], would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe ... chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other regresses to it.15 (The God Delusion)

Mayday! Mayday! Boeing 747 Going Down!

There is an obvious flaw in the logic of the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. Let's rephrase the above-cited paragraph from The God Delusion and apply Dawkins' logic to the Texas Instruments business calculator that is sitting on my desk as I write these words. It will immediately become clear that something has gone terribly wrong with Dawkins' attempt to cling to his non-belief:

Seen clearly intelligent design will turn out to be a redoubling of the problem. This is because the designer himself immediately raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of designing something as improbable as a Texas Instruments business calculator would have to be even more improbable than the business calculator itself ... chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other regresses to it.

Of course we know this is ridiculous. An intelligent entity purposefully and consciously designed and built the calculator. Applying the same logic to a bacterium is more absurd, in light of the fact that a bacterium is extraordinarily more functionally complex than a calculator. Only a willful designer could produce a digitally controlled self-replicating molecular machine like a bacterium.

Only a willful designer could produce a digitally controlled self-replicating molecular machine like a bacterium.

The confusion in Dawkins' argument stems from his subtle, but significant misrepresentation of Hoyle's analogy. Here is how Dawkins presents Hoyle's words: "Hoyle said the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." That is not what Hoyle said. Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on earth by chance is comparable to the probability of a hurricane assembling a 747 by chance. However, the probability of a 747 being assembled by design and the probability of life originating on earth by design is extremely high. If we keep that in mind the rest of Dawkins' argument makes sense.

In other words, if it is statistically improbable that a 747 could have originated by chance, then it is an even greater statistical improbability that the designer of the 747 originated by chance. I agree wholeheartedly. Both the 747 and the human creators of the 747 are here not by chance, but by design!

The problem is not if the bacterium is designed and created; it is as obviously designed and created as much as a laptop computer is obviously designed and created. There is no escaping that simple fact. Just as there clearly exists a designer of the 747, and just as there clearly exists a designer of the calculator, so too, there clearly exists a designer of the first bacterium and its genetic code. The philosophical problem that must be addressed is the following: How do we escape from the dilemma of the infinitely regressing series of creators (i.e., whoever created me would have to be at least as complex and sophisticated as I am, and therefore he would also need someone to create him, and so on.)? To state this dilemma in a slightly different way: Since all agree that at one time life did not exist and now it does exist, there must be an actual beginning to the process, it cannot go back infinitely.

Only Complex "Material" Configurations Need a Creator

One of the skills stressed in Talmudic learning is that when posing a logical difficulty, one must struggle to formulate the question as precisely as possible. Many times, the largest part of finding a solution to a difficulty is asking precisely the right question. Dawkins did not accurately pose the question; therefore it is not surprising that he is getting inaccurate answers. Properly presented, the question is as follows:

Any functionally complex and purposefully arranged form of physical matter (i.e. a Boeing 747, a calculator, or a bacterium), must itself have a creator at least as complex as the object in question. How do we (or can we) escape an infinite regression of creators?

That which demands and requires a preceding creator is a complex arrangement of physical matter. With this precise formulation of the question, the answer becomes obvious. At some point in the progression, we are faced with the inescapable conclusion that there must be a creator who is not physical matter at all; a creator who does not need to be created; a creator who is not subject to the limitations of cause and effect. There must be a creator who is the first, who is the beginning of it all. There must be a creator who is outside of the physical universe. A creator who is outside of the physical universe, not existing in time and space, and composed of neither matter nor energy, does not require a preceding creator. There is nothing that came before him. He created time, he does not exist in time; there is no "before". ("What happened before the big bang? The answer is there was no ‘before.’ Time itself began at the big bang." 16Physicist, Dr. Paul Davies) We are created; along with time, space, matter, and energy. We are subject to the limitations of a time/space bound series of causes and effects. The creator simply is.17

Dr. Robert Shapiro and I Are In Agreement about a Supernatural Creator

In fact, in 1986, a year before Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker was published, Dr. Robert Shapiro had already presented the same argument and reached the same conclusion as myself:

Similarly, the existence of bacteria and other living beings, all of which are much more complex than a watch, implies the existence of a creator, as only a higher being could design creatures so fit for their function... If a watch is complex, then the watchmaker must be even more complicated. A being with the capacity to create a watchmaker would be the most complex of the lot. By following this line of reasoning, we have made our problem more difficult ... and we can resolve it only by introducing supernatural forces. We must look for another solution if we wish to remain within science.18 (Shapiro, Origins)

This is exactly what I stated above. The conclusion is that there must be a creator who is not part of the physical universe at all (i.e., a supernatural creator). Inasmuch as Dr. Shapiro is a self-declared agnostic, he obviously rejects this conclusion. Why?

Shapiro dismisses it because he does not like where it leads; namely, to the conclusion that the source of the first living organisms must be a supernatural force.

If you'll notice, Shapiro does not in any way whatsoever attempt to explain to us why this "line of reasoning" is flawed. He does not point out any logical inconsistencies, mistaken assumptions, or any other glitches that would cause a rational, truth-seeking individual to reject this "line of reasoning." He simply dismisses it because he does not like where it leads; namely, to the conclusion that the source of the first living organisms must be a supernatural force. In his own words: "...we can only resolve it by introducing supernatural forces." So I ask you Dr. Shapiro, what is so terrible about that?

In fact, the rational truth seeker would pose the following to Dr. Shapiro: All agree that the process which resulted in the formation of the first living organism required a beginning. There are two possible beginnings,

A) a supernatural creator who is composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space,

or B) a naturalistic process that started with non-life and ended with life.

The evidence for a supernatural creator is obvious. Just as the suit itself is proof of the tailor and the poem itself the proof of the poet, the bacterium itself (which is exponentially more sophisticated than either of the other two), is proof of its creator. As it turns out, logic leads us to the conclusion that this creator must ultimately be supernatural, but a creator nonetheless. What plausible, empirical evidence can you offer for alternative B), that life arose from non-life by a naturalistic process? Instead of admitting to the simple truth that there is no plausible evidence that life arose from non-life naturalistically, Shapiro, like many of his colleagues, dodges the issue: "We must look for another solution if we wish to remain within science." Dr. Shapiro, you can choose to remain "within science" if you so desire; I choose the truth.

The Reality of a Creator Is Part of Our Inner Essence

Not only is a supernatural creator the reasonable and logical solution to our question, I would suggest that we are "hard wired" to both understand and experience the reality of this concept. It is part of our inner essence. Richard Dawkins himself expresses this inner reality, and despite himself, is unable to contain this genuine reaction to the wonders of nature:

I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration ... and you almost feel a desire to worship something ... I feel this ... I recognize that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it, we all of us share a common kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life, for the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, for the sheer magnitude of geological time ... and it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship ... into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent ... you want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.19 (from a debate with Dr. John Lennox)

What is Dawkins describing if not the experience of a reality that is indescribably greater than ourselves, that transcends our own being? That the beauties of the universe, the unfathomable complexity of life, the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, inspire in us a desire to reach out somehow and connect with that ultimate greatness. A desire to not just connect, but a primal understanding that this ultimate "maker" is a being we want to worship. What stops him from taking that step? In Dawkins' own words:

What Science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator... It was a supreme achievement of the human intellect to realize there is a better explanation ... that these things can come about by purely natural causes ... we understand essentially how life came into being.20 (from the Dawkins-Lennox debate)

"We understand essentially how life came into being"?! – Who understands? Who is "we"? Is it Dr. Stuart Kauffman? "Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started ... is a fool or a knave." 21

Is it Dr. Robert Shapiro? "The weakest point is our lack of understanding of the origin of life. No evidence remains that we know of to explain the steps that started life here, billions of years ago." 22

Is it Dr. George Whitesides? "Most chemists believe as I do that

life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of chemicals in the

prebiotic earth. How? I have no idea... On the basis of all chemistry I know, it seems astonishingly improbable."

Is it Dr. G. Cairns-Smith? "Is it any wonder that [many scientists] find the origin of life to be utterly perplexing?" 23

Is it Dr. Paul Davies? "Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled ... the problem of how and where life began is one of the great out-standing mysteries of science."

Is it Dr. Richard Dawkins? Here is how Dawkins responded to questions about the Origin of Life during an interview with Ben Stein in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

Stein: How did it start?

Dawkins: Nobody knows how it started, we know the kind of event that it must have been, we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Stein: What was that?

Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.

Stein: How did that happen?

Dawkins: I told you I don't know.

Stein: So you have no idea how it started?

Dawkins: No, No, NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE. 24

“Nobody understands the origin of life, if they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you.” (Dr. Ken Nealson, microbiologist and co-chairman of the Committee on the Origin and Evolution of Life for the National Academy of Sciences)

Nobody, including Professor Dawkins, has any idea "how life came into being!" It is only this self-deceiving view of reality that allows Dawkins to declare that science has emancipated him from the impulse to attribute the astounding wonders of the living world to a creator. There is no human intellect on the face of the earth that has achieved a "better explanation." We have shown conclusively that no chemist, physicist, biologist, nor any other type of scientist has any real clue how life could have come about through "natural processes." Scientists do not understand how life "essentially" (or non-essentially for that matter), came into being. Only a "fool," a "knave" could make such an outrageous claim.

Perhaps it is time for these scientists to express not awe, not admiration ... but humility. To stand back from their lab tables, their beakers, pipettes, and Bunsen burners, and reflect on the words of the Psalmist:

"My heart was not proud, and my eyes were not haughty, nor did I pursue matters too great and wondrous for me..." (Psalms 131)

For arguments sake I am assuming that Hume's argument makes sense. I have purposely left aside the philosophical/academic point as to whether or not Hume's argument is actually valid on its own merits.

The following description of the universe "before" the Big Bang was written by physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder. I placed the word before in quotation marks because as a result of the human inability to grasp and describe a state of being without the existence of time – a state of being where the words "before" and "after" have no meaning in the sense that we normally understand them to have – I have no choice but to use highly inadequate terms and descriptions: "At the moment of the Big Bang everything, the entire universe, you included was part of a homogeneous speck – no divisions, no separations ... and before this there was neither time nor space nor matter. That speck was the entire universe. Not a speck within some vacuous space. A vacuum is space... There was no other space. No outside to the inside of the creation. Creation was everywhere at once." (The Hidden Face of God, Schroeder, Touchstone Books, 2002, p. 3)

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Rabbi Moshe Averick has taught theology, spirituality and religious philosophy for nearly 30 years. Many of his students have gone on to become educators and rabbinic leaders in North America, England, and Israel. He is known for his singular ability to explain complex topics in clear, understandable language and - to borrow the description of one University of Chicago-trained philosopher of science – his "wicked" sense of humor.

Rabbi Averick ran educational programs at UCLA and Northridge University in Los Angeles, and then became one of the founding faculty members of Aish Toronto and later at the Shaalvim Rabbinical Seminary in Israel. In 2007 he moved back to Chicago. He is the proud father and grandfather of eight children and six grandchildren.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 283

(277)
Chaim,
September 21, 2015 5:45 PM

Poet for a poem argument is flawed

We barely know 1% about our universe. What makes you so certain that the unknown universe follows the same rules of cause and effect? Isn't it more logical to conclude that we just don't know? Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest if instead of pretending that we know the answer, to actually search for the answers?

(276)
Joseph,
August 18, 2015 12:54 PM

Cont'd from 275 PS Ther's a sefer in English by Hagoen Hatzadik Rav Avigdor Miller title 'Heavens Will Testify" bringing a lot of examples of creation that one can see its came about with a purpose, and can only interpet that there is a creator for that purpose. for those who seek the truth.

#274 Line 4....And he created certain matter to confuse his haters 'l'abdom'...to be ...... forever

(275)
Joseph,
August 18, 2015 8:41 AM

cont'd from 374

.... We see this l'havdil in Genesis parshes toldos first Rasi " he forge the image of Issac should be like Avrohom because the mockers were saying.....' see there.

Bottom line like my Rebbe ztv'l said , and a poster here made similar thought, the holy 'Noda B'yehuda' (17th century) had bebate with a heretic and finnaly told him ' if your right , you'll have no problem, but if your wrong you'll be .... forever and ever'

(274)
Joseph,
August 17, 2015 11:36 PM

from 273, cont'd

The debate of Rabbi Averick with the other side can go on and on.No one side can prove anything. Why, because the almighty wanted a bechirah for reward and punishment.If we could prove without shadow of doubt of a creator the whole purpose in nill, like the gemorah states 'and he created certain..So one has to contemplate,meditate,think of the immediate universe around him, without these sophisticated language of these 'brilliant' scientists,think of little things like we mentioned in 273 and be a fool to think all is just random.EG:how did this big bang figure that the nose should be protruding in front why not in the back of the head .Oh, because he has to breathe when he sleeps, so why wouldn't he be able to sleep with the front down (I'm getting confused which side we should label the front)'.But,oy vey, then he wont be able to see right away when someone breaks into the room. And, oh I forget, the mouth also needs to breathe,also snoring would be a disaster.And you want to tell me a big bang figured this out a trillion years ago.Why did this big bang from a trillion years ago make the nose protruding? What would be bad of just 2 holes over there?Oh that big bang new people would need reading glasses so the sticking nose is very handy.Like Job (iyov) said ' umibsari echzeh elokay...''and from my flesh I can see my god'.Why did this big bang create genes so parents and their children look alike.Whats the random purpose of this phenominon? If you think of morality then I understand .There is a creator and the purpose is ..see 2nd parag #273 ..along those lines.I'll demonstrate with a not so nice joke I read,A lady was waiting in Drs office and there was another lady with a child sitting opposite.So the one lady tells the lady with child 'you know, your daughter looks' exactly like your husband' ..The other lady frowns and says 'Its my next door neighbors child' vhamaskil yovin

(273)
Joseph,
August 16, 2015 9:05 PM

Big bang??

Who is this big bang that caused fusion and created all different species but one that walks on 2 legs that has the intelligence to control the rest of living things. Inventing all these technological miracles.

This big bang from trillion years ago created humanity that the female should be a virgin until...What was the purpose of this evolution, if not that there is a creator who was going to give a torah with moral codes. see 1st chapter tractate kethubos see devorim ki saytzay.

Why didnt this big bang create all beings millions simeltaniously. How did it figure just to have few of each....

And couldn't this big bang create living things and they should be immortal?

(272)
Anonymous,
August 23, 2014 11:26 PM

I don't believe any argument that is reasonable for a belief in G-d would sway a person, who wants to live there life immorally. In other words they are saying don't tell me I can't live the way I want to.

(271)
Susan Browne,
February 10, 2014 4:25 AM

Proof that God Exists for Agnostotheists.

In discussing the existence of God with Atheists, the only irrefutable proof that I find compelling is the existence of the Jewish People and the exact fulfillment of the prophesies that foretell the future events that have been and are being fulfilled.

This argument would have been less credible before 1948 and 1967, but now it puts the hammer down on all the non-believers in God and the Bible.

The fulfilled prophesies that are happening before our eyes are the proof of the existence of God and his Plan. If these things are true, then the Bible is true and tells us all we need to know about Him for right now.

(270)
Anonymous,
February 6, 2014 7:15 PM

Is this where the problem occurs for agnostics and atheists?

Forgive me, but the first cause or designer issue/argument seems to be missing the point. Why do they not find the arguments convincing? Perhaps, Berishets (sp.) is not a detailed argument or study of how man came into being. Perhaps, Creation seems not to be a linear path, but one of swerves and deadends. Perhaps, they do not see G-d's daily involvement in our affairs. Perhaps, they think religious people are naive and believe in fairytales. Perhaps, anything not defined by science is irrational and unreal.

(269)
Anonymous,
February 11, 2013 2:42 AM

Misunderstanding of Hume

This article seems to sidestep Hume by saying its not applicable? This is incorrect and not warranted. The essence of Hume's argument is that there exists no necessary connection between a cause and effect. If you are going to proceed with an argument that posits a first cause i.e. a watchmaker, you must identify this connection. I am personally not an atheist, but Hume has a point. It is the same as our problem with trusting sense perception: how do we know we can trust our sense perception? By appealing to sense perception (circular). How do we know there exists a connection between cause X and effect Y? By appealing to experiences we have had where cause X brought about effect Y. Would we expect effect Y if we had never experienced cause X temporally preceeding effect Y? Can we conceive of effect Y distinct from cause X? Hume would argue yes. His theory voices a concern pertaining to knowledge, and whether or not our knowledge aquired through induction could be correct. Of course Hume himself notes that induction is pragmatic, but at a deeper philosophical depth the problem with it in the epistomologic sense is catastrophic.
Second, I'm surprised Hume's explanation of "explaining the individual constitutes" wasn't rejected. If one accepts this position (I personally don't due to missing ontological pieces), then they wouldn't require a first cause.

(268)
Dr. Harry Merl,
July 17, 2011 2:08 PM

Wonderful reasoning

Rabbi Averick does a wonderful job by unmasking the crazy logic of atheists.Yes, the work proves its creator and that cannot be denied. Science makes that clear. We are all still caught in materialistic reasoning.
Let us kneel down in awe before the creator and pray that he might open our minds to his existence , even presence.

(267)
Anonymous,
March 28, 2011 6:59 PM

If you're really adamantly against, it's not just rational defenses. It's your emtions holding you back from changing. Try keeping Shabbas once, fully. Then ask your questions again. Hey, if you die, and we're right, you got a whole long time to suffer. If we die, and you're wrong, well, I'm pretty happy with life with G-d, plus I have eternity.

(266)
moshe averick,
March 18, 2011 4:43 AM

REPLY TO JOHN

Actually, I thought the postings on this article was closed. I enjoy very much trading ideas and discussion back and forth. However, I do not always have the time to answer all the comments. It seems that most ot the disagreements by skeptics to the Design Argument fall into 6 or 7 different categories. I have composed what I hope is a fairly comprehensive response to these objections, going through them one at a time. It should be posted soon. Please look for it and we can continue the dialogue.
Sincerely, Moshe Averick

(265)
John Pine,
March 10, 2011 12:17 AM

Cosmic absurdity

I was browsing a web site that discussed a movie with a religious theme (that I was in with Martin Sheen a long time ago) called 'Conflict'. I found a wonderful quotation which just about sums up Rabbi Moshe Avarick's critics: 'The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.

anon,
March 13, 2011 3:27 PM

bravo

Rabbi Averick's "problem" may be that in addition to logic, he is trying to also require that common sense be applied, while the pure "logicians" who counter him insist that that is and invalid ingredient

Tailor,
March 14, 2011 3:26 AM

"Nothing"

If that is the extent of your understanding of cosmology, quantum mechanics, physical chemistry, and evolution, then I can see why it doesn't make sense.

anon,
March 14, 2011 8:08 PM

to Tailor - also nothing

I'm sure you can clearly explain it to us, and to orgel, shapiro, wald, crick, hoyle, and a whole slew of us who don't get it.

Anonymous,
March 15, 2011 9:33 PM

Exactly. Lack of 100% consensus regarding any detail of a scientific theory invalidates that theory and proves that science will never have the answer and that God is responsible. QED.

Guest,
March 16, 2011 7:36 PM

Okay.

I think the problem is a lot more acute than that, and you are being disingenuous here. There is NO credible "theory" for the spontaneous generation of life. It's not a question of a few minor details.

(264)
John,
March 9, 2011 12:24 PM

Is there anybody out there? Apparently not....

Some people's posts are no longer published when they start asking awkward questions. So much for intellectual integrity. It seems that people that have anything important to say that the rabbi can not answer, will receive the same reply as they would if they prayed to the god he is promoting, that is no reply....

(263)
M Mos,
March 9, 2011 1:00 AM

messages from space

To Moshe Averick --- the answer to your point about SETI is very simple. Messages from outer space and bacteria are not the same thing. It is purely an assumption to say they originate in a similar way.

(262)
Tailor,
March 9, 2011 12:08 AM

"If they received morse code from said galaxy asking that we send them more songs by the Beatles and Elvis, there would only be two possible conclusions: a. They had made contact with ET OR b. someone from the Earth was playing a joke on them." Why wouldn't you conclude God sent the message?

(261)
Brian,
March 8, 2011 10:46 PM

Reply to M Averick (250)

"As a layperson I am not quslified on my own to assert that a bacterium evolving from a self-assembled, replicating molecule is possible or not..." According to your logic, the functional complexity of a bacterium proves that abiogenesis is possible, but that it happened. You've argued that suits, bicycles, and other functionally complex things are designed; therefore, bacteria, which are also functionally complex, must also be designed. Similarly, people, birds, trees, and other functionally complex living things evolved; therefore, bacteria, which are also functionally complex, must also have evolved. Intelligent design requires a starting point. Evolution requires a starting point. The starting point of ID must be a Creator. The starting point of evolution must be abiogenesis. The functional complexity of bacteria is evidence that a Creator exists. The functional complexity of bacteria is evidence that an organic molecule capable of replication must self-assembled. Other than the fact that my argument makes a generalization about all living things, while your argument takes a generalization about nonliving things and applies it to living things, the reasoning seems pretty much exactly the same.

(260)
Adam,
March 8, 2011 6:42 PM

Fourth request for standard form

The structure of your argument as presented in comment #254 would be laughed at by any Philosophy 101 Teaching Assistant. In comments #147 and #148 I demonstrated how to structure your argument in standard form. Number the generalizations/syllogisms. Label the premises and conclusions of each generalization/syllogism. As I've already explained, the structures of valid syllogisms and fallacies are easily recognizable when displayed in standard form. So, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, my request is simple: present your argument in standard form so that any errors can be clearly seen. This shouldn't be that hard for someone who has "taught philosophy for 30 years." Either you don't understand the request, which is appalling for someone who portrays himself as an authority on logic and philosophy, or you are intentionally evading the request.

(259)
John Pine,
March 8, 2011 5:07 PM

Spinosauruses

It's as though a number of eight-ton Spinosauruses were trying to tear each other apart here. Moshe Avarick's point about our inability to come to terms with an infinite regression of creators is surely indisputable. There is, as I have said elsewhere, at least one thing in this universe that has no beginning. That makes our which-bus-to-catch brains go into system overload. God is not dependent on linear dimensions: that we cannot ever know him completely is the basis of the endless flow from him to us. He is the God of Everything including the gaps. Our vocabulary is not able to cope with describing him. Even 'intelligent' may be the wrong word, because intelligence is more or less linear. Creation is ongoing: we and everything else are sustained from moment to moment. A conjurer making a rabbit disappear is much less remarkable than watching the rabbit NOT disappear.

(258)
Moshe Averick,
March 8, 2011 4:40 AM

Reply to MMos

MMOS
Step #1 is not an assumption stated as fact. It is a fact that all human beings live with and has been confirmed by human experience from time immemorial. It is the reason why the SETI scientists are waiting to hear some sort of specified information in the form of radio transmissions coming from the great spiral galaxy. If they received morse code from said galaxy asking that we send them more songs by the Beatles and Elvis, there would only be two possible conclusions: a. They had made contact with ET OR b. someone from the Earth was playing a joke on them. The one thing they wouldn't do (at least if they still had a solid connection with reality), is what you are doing. They would not sit around and ask if the specified information they received perhaps did not reflect an intelligent source because no atheistic philosophy professor at a well known liberal arts university had submitted a "properly" composed series of statements, hypotheses, syllogisms , etc explaining why a transmission of morse code requesting more Beatles and Elvis music fit a proper model of intelligent purpose. The specified information in the DNA of the simplest living bacterium is contained in hundreds of thousands of base pairs. Isn't it time you simply accepted the obvious truth instead of tying yourself in knots with esoteric philosophical principles that only can cloud an issue that is elegantly simple. If Professor Thomas Nagel (atheist) of NYU can see this obvious point, why can't you?

(257)
M Mos,
March 7, 2011 9:43 AM

to John Pine

John -- after reading some of what you wrote in the other sites, I'm sympathetic. I think science has limitations arising from its epistemology. But, please, please, this post by Rabbi Moshe Averick is about the argument from design. It's an attempt to use logic to prove that God exists (or at least make a strong suggestion of that). And it just doesn't make logical sense. Look at reply #254. Does that look like any logical argument you've ever seen in philosophy class? Not to me. Point #1 is an assumption but is stated as fact. There's no need to read further after that; the whole thing is flawed. But M. Averick does some weird things, saying in step 2, "#1 is still true", in step 3, "#1 and #2 is still true", etc. That's not deductive reasoning. I don't want to convince you to become an atheist. I want to convince you to look for a better argument.

(256)
,
March 6, 2011 8:43 PM

Appeal to Authority

Yes, thank you, Anonymous: I am aware of that. Appeal to Authority has a use, though. It drives one to read the actual words of the authority himself, which may well not be fallacious. Please also read my blog at http://johnpine.blogspot.com/ and argument with Richard Dawkins at http://richarddawkins.net/articles/559922-richard-dawkins-welcome-to-the-boing-boing-guestblog?page=1

(255)
Moshe Averick,
March 4, 2011 7:39 AM

REPLY TO ADAM (248) MY ARGUMENT CLARIFIED

1. All things that are beyond level X of functional complexity must be the result of a conscious, intelligent act of creation. The first living bacterium was well over level X of functional complexity, therefore it had a creator.
2. #1 is true, i.e. the first bacterium had a creator. Since a non-supernatural creator leads to an infinitely regressing series of creators, the only possible creator must be supernatural. Since #1 is true, i.e. there is a creator, there is therefore a supernatural creator
3. #''s 1 & 2 are true, i.e. there is a supernatural creator. If it can be demonstrated empirically and conclusively that the first bacterium originated through a natural process it would prove that #'s 1 & 2 are false.
4. There is no evidence that the first bacterium could emerge through a naturalistic process, therefore #'s 1 & 2 are still deemed to be true.

(254)
Anonymous,
March 3, 2011 10:51 PM

Dear John Pine...

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).

(253)
anon,
March 3, 2011 8:20 PM

to Bob Applebaum

you wrote: "writings in the sand" are known to be designed; can you identify the exact, detailed process by which you know that, if you didn't witness it, and how you can be sure it's not the wind, surf etc. You'd know it, even if no specific candidate was ever found. But really, it's just [infinitely] more likely probable. But, you're willing to commit, because you know that saying otherwise would be absurd. And if you saw the same thing, while arriving as the first human on neptune, you'd still conclude the same thing, it was a product of intent.

(252)
John Pine,
March 3, 2011 8:15 PM

Our team

I am very honoured to be paired up by Bob Applebaum with Moshe Averick. I am very interested to hear that what Darwin says doesn't matter. Incidentally, besides Darwin and Kingsley, Socrates is also on our team (Please see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17490/17490-h/17490-h.htm)

(251)
moshe averick,
March 3, 2011 6:43 PM

REPLIES FROM MOSHE AVERICK

BRIAN (247) "One could just as easily say that the complexity of a bacterium is evidence that it evolved from a self-assembled, replicating molecule."
As a layperson I am not quslified on my own to assert that such a thing is possible or not.; However, world class chemists such as Dr. Robert Shapiro, Dr. Graham-Cairns Smith, Dr. HP Yockey (physicst and information theorist), Dr. George Whitesides, DR. Gerald Joyce, the late Dr. Leslie Orgel, Dr. Francois Jacob, Dr. Andrew Knoll, Dr. Darell Falk,etc. etc, have candidly stated opinions ranging from "we have no idea how such a thing could have happened" to "it is astonishingly improbable" to "it is as likelly as a golf ball playing its way around an 18 golf course by itself." No human engineer has ever been able to build a self-replicating machine. Why would anyone expect such a thing to happen in an undirected process in a prebiotic swamp? When Francis Crick said that an honest man would have to admit that the appearance of life seems like a miracle, he meant exactly what he said. As I have said before, You have your work cut out for you. The ball is in your court.
BOB APPLEBAUM: No offense Bob, but calm down, you are starting to sound hysterical. The worst that can happen is that we will continue to disagree. May the truth win out.
TO ANONYMOUS (237) Morally offensive?! Would you compose yourself please? No one is trying to block medical research. There are many devout Orthodox Jews and believing Christians who are medical researchers. The notion that their belief in a Creator would interfere with their researchi is so outrageious, I find it hard to believe that anyone could say such a thing. I have to admit, I thought I'd heard it all, but you have taken the cake.

(250)
Moshe Averick,
March 3, 2011 6:27 PM

REPLIES FROM MOSHE AVERICK

MMOS (244) Are you suggesting there were humans on the earth 3.8 billion years ago? Let's say there were. Where did they come from. There has to be a first creator at some point.

(249)
Adam,
March 3, 2011 2:58 PM

mystified?

Your "mystified"? The syllogisms are there in comments #148, 149, 153. The same place they've been for over a week now. Also, nobody here is saying amino acids "evolved" into bacteria. Brian, Bob, myself, and probably others have explained this several times already. Comment #247 is the most recent attempt. Yet, you continue to mischaracterize the current, leading scientific explanation for the origin of life.

(248)
Brian,
March 3, 2011 3:28 AM

Burden of proof

The burden of proof is on whoever is claiming to know something about how the world works, regardless of whether the claim is about natural or supernatural phenomena. It isn't logical to assume a natural or supernatural origin of life based on a lack of evidence for the contrary hypothesis. That is an argument from ignorance. If there isn't evidence for either hypothesis, then the answer is "I don't know." But you are claiming you do know. So, we are rightly asking you for evidence. Also, the complexity of bacteria is only "evidence" that they were created if you assume that a bacterium was the first entity capable of self replication. One could just as easily say that the complexity of a bacterium is evidence that it evolved from a self-assembled, replicating molecule. If bacteria evolved from a simple, self replicating organic molecule, would this molecule be on a level of "design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process?" Obviously not. I don't know how life began, but apparently you do. How do you know that bacteria were created? Or, back to my original question, how do you know that a bacterium was the first entity capable of self replication, which if true, necessarily implies a creator?

(247)
Mike,
March 3, 2011 1:51 AM

Reply to Bob Applebaum

Bob, don't get me wrong, criticism is not a problem. But alleging dishonesty, stupidity, or a hidden agenda is not constructive to healthy debate. Now, you asked why I can't acknowledge that people have incorrectly ascribed a designer to natural phenomena. I'm not sure where you got that I don't acknowledge it. I do. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss notions of a designer when looking at at origins of life.

(246)
Bob Applebaum,
March 2, 2011 8:37 PM

Quoting Others Shows You Can't Think For Yourself

To Mssr.'s Averick and Pine - quoting others is not evidence of anything. It only shows you can find someone who once said something you agree with. It shows an inability to think for yourself. It doesn't matter what Darwin, Scott, or anyone else said. We have evidence of four forces strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravity, electromagnetic. We have no other evidence of any other sources of fundamental force. If you do, please share it with us and win a Noble Prize. If you don't, then you are just making stuff up.

(245)
M Mos,
March 2, 2011 8:32 PM

to Moshe Averick

Rabbi--- Would you agree with this principle? "Anything with functional complexity must have been designed by a human." There is very, very strong evidence for this principle---in every case where we can observe how a functionally complex object came into being, we know for a fact that a person designed it. Of all the cases where we can cross-check this (that is, cases in which we can observe both the functionally complex object and we can observe it coming into existence), 100% of the time a human designed it. Seems to me like the logical conclusion is that humans designed bacteria. Now, it would be enlightening to understand your use of logic if you would explain to me where my reasoning has gone awry.

(244)
Bob Applebaum,
March 2, 2011 8:28 PM

Nope, Not That Easy

Cell phones, writings in the sand, etc. are designed. That is a Universal Claim and universally known. The burden of proof is on someone countering those claims. That a bacteria is designed is not universally known as you can see from the comments here.. You have not supported this claim with evidence, and you have no evidence. That which is claimed without evidence can be disputed without evidence. Not only do you not have evidence, but you do not acknowledge the logical fallacies which have been pointed out over and over in the absence of evidence. Any honest person would simply apologize and move on.. Yes, if you throw logic aside, there are no bounds to what you can believe. There are INFINITE answers to the origins of life question if we toss logic aside. One of those answers is Designers. Another is Friggenhaults. Another is Casper and his friends. This is why an intellectually honest discussion has to be bounded by the rules of logic, but Mr. Averick will not play by those rules. I am reminded of a cartoon in which two people are playing chess. One studies the game, the rules, the strategies, etc. and enjoys the intellectual challenge of the game. The other just picks up his Queen, and takes his opponent's King and declares "checkmate". And the latter always thinks he has won, when he hasn't.

(243)
Moshe Averick,
March 2, 2011 5:50 PM

REPLIES FROM mOSHE AVERICK

MMOS: Yes we can agree on that. No one was around when the first bacterium was created.
ADAM: I'm completely mystified at what is bothering you. Restate your syllogism and I will respond.
Your analogy about evolution is invalid. Everyone admits that Evolution and Origin of Life are two completely unrelated topics that are fundamentally and conceptually different. Both DR. Lynn Margulis and Dr. Robert Shapiro have stated that it is a fundamentally bigger step to go from amino acids to a bacterium than to go from a bacterium to a human being.
Dr. Eugenie Scott: " Although some people confuse the origin of life with evolution the two are conceptually separate...Life had to precede evolution...We know much more about evolution than the origin of life."

(242)
Moshe AVerick,
March 2, 2011 5:39 PM

REPLY TO BRIAN AND BOB

BRAIN AND BOB: Everyone agrees that the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts a naturalistic origin of life. That is why there is a million dollar Origin of Life prize being offered.
I don't have to prove that the smiley face in the sand is the product of intelligent design, I don't have to prove that a cellphone is the product of intelligent design, I don't have to prove that a super sophisticated digitally encoded genetic code that directs the construction of somehting as awsomely functionally complex as a bacterium is the product of intelligent design, that is obvious.
Dr. Christian DeDuve (Nobel Prize Medicine, 1974): According to most experts, life arose naturally by way of processes entirely explainable by the laws of physicas and chemistry. However, there is no definitive proof of this statement since the origin of life is not known."
Dr. Robert Hazen: " How did life arise?...BARRING DIVINE INTERVENTION... life MUST have merged buy a natural process - one fully consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics...yet details of that origin even pose mysteris as deep as any facing Science..the epic history of life's chemical origins is woefully incomplete...what we know about the origin of life is dwarfed by what we don't know."
Dr.Leslie Orgel; "For much of the 20th Century orign of life research has aimed to elucidate how, WITHOUT SUPERNATRUAL INTERVENTION spontaneous injteraction of the relatively simple molecules...could have yielded life's last common ancestor."
The obvious answer, as all these scientists admit it supernatural intervention. They have assumed as an article of faith that there was a naturalistic origin to life, one that can be explained purely scientifically.
So far they have completely failed. The burden of proof is on you.

(241)
John Pine,
March 2, 2011 4:38 PM

Kingsley quote

I think I misquoted in my last but one. I believe Kingsley said, "God made NATURE make itself" and Darwin agreed.

(240)
John Pine,
March 2, 2011 4:27 PM

Kingsley and Darwin

I have lifted this quotation from Wikepedia to show Darwin's own acceptance of Kingsley's view:
Darwin added an edited version of Kingsley's closing remarks to the next edition of his book, stating that "A celebrated author and divine has written to me that 'he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws'." [6] When a heated dispute lasting three years developed over human evolution, Kingsley gently satirised the debate as the Great Hippocampus Question.

(239)
Bob Applebaum,
March 2, 2011 2:34 PM

Patience

To Mike - Why is Mr. Averick "patient', but anyone who patiently criticizes him, not "patient"? Mr. Averick in one comment essentially said it was outlandish to think life originated in outer space. He essentially said, only a desparate person would say such. Yet, he claims life has its origins from outer, outer space (outside space). He has made a terrible contradiction. And why would an honest ID proponent not consider Designers from outer space? If the whole premise is life looks designed, therefore there are Designers, then the Designers could be in outer space or in the deep Earth or in outer, outer space or in another dimension. Yet he seems to know more than "looks designed" could provide information on. You haven't explained in what manner I changed my Coke analogy, so I'll assume it is trivial if it was changed. The evidence shows that whenever people posited designersdidit, whether for thunder, disease, drought, etc., with 100% consistency we have found a natural cause for those natural phenomena. It's a crystal clear track record, and you should patiently think about why it is that you have difficulty acknowledging that track record. P.S. I didn't read where anyone said they were atheists. They may or may not be. They are simply arguing against the poor logic of ID. Many theists argue against it, as do many atheists because it is bad epistemology. If Mr. Averick said 2 2=89, it would be bad mathematics. I would hope theists and atheists would patiently argue against it. That is having class.

(238)
Anonymous,
March 2, 2011 1:27 PM

Reply to Mike: Show some intelligence

What's sadly predictable is theists resorting to the "you're being mean..." line after all your absurd talking points have been demolished. You want to talk about class? The distinguished Rabbi is dismissing the work of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives, sacrificed hours with their families, to understand how the world works. Applications of evolutionary biology have alleviated untold amounts of human suffering. It's obscene. At the same time, he is trying to undermine the very meanings of science and reason, thus undermining humanity's ability to alleviate future suffering. It's obscene and morally offensive.

(237)
John Pine,
March 2, 2011 1:13 PM

Respect for the Rabbi

I am most impressed with Rabbi Moshe Averick's superb clarity. The standard of debate on this site is higher than I have met anywhere else. My point was that God uses what appears to be randomness (although nobody knows what that is) in orderly creation. 'God made creation make itself' as Charles Kingsley said without contradiction.to Charles Darwin. Atheists are much more easily flawed with ontology than with arguments about process. A film projected on a screen has its own internal logic, but it cannot abide references to the projector that put it there.

(236)
ARI,
March 2, 2011 1:00 PM

The purpose of it all

Moshe, you muddle complexity and purpose to arrive at your definition of intelligent design. I know a smiley face in the sand with my name has a creator because of my previous experience with purposeful design, not because of its inherent complexity. Additionally, you are in awe of the functional complexity of a cell due to the purpose it serves ;if all those nano-tools did nothing, you would call it randomness, as undesigned as driftwood. So the core of your argument is really about purpose. Yet purpose is a directional philosophical trap: you know that purposeful design can create functional complexity; that does not suggest that everything with functional complexity was designed ON PURPOSE. Perhaps it's no coincidence that purpose is at the center of so many spiritual, philosophical, and theological quests. We'd like to find purpose in everything, yet nature may have other ideas. In other words, the origin of the first microbe may indeed be akin to the randomness driftwood assembling on a beach. It took on traits that make it look designed in hindsight, yet we can't conclude there was purposeful design in the prior condition.

(235)
Mike,
March 2, 2011 4:44 AM

Show Some Class, Atheists

This is sadly predictable: The more patiently the rabbi answers these questions, the angrier the atheists get, and the sillier their objections get. The rabbi is showing incredible restraint in not responding in kind to your insults, but you are guests on the aish.com web site, and without his participation this thread dies. Please show some class.

(234)
Adam,
March 2, 2011 1:31 AM

You can prove anything when unconstrained by logic.

There are two choices: Life from non-life through a naturalistic process or it was the result of a creative act by a supernatural intelligence. The evidence for a naturalistic process is obvious. Just as multicellular organisms evolved from eukaryotes, and eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, the earliest prokaryotes, which are exponentially less functionally complex than the other two, also obviously evolved. What is the evidence that life was the result of a supernatural process? None. The truth is obvious.

(233)
John Pine,
March 2, 2011 12:07 AM

Randomness is orderly

If, as I said to a silent Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/559922-richard-dawkins-welcome-to-the-boing-boing-guestblog?page=1) molecules did not move randomly, then gases would not diffuse properly. If I came down to breakfast, tossed a coin a thousand times, and every single time it came down on tails, I'd think something had gone badly wrong with the universe.

(232)
M Mos,
March 1, 2011 6:17 PM

for M. Averick --- experience with origin

Not sure if my question got lost here, so I'll restate it. Rabbi, next question is: does anyone have direct experience of the origin of life? Was anyone around when the first bacterium was designed (or came into existence)? Can anyone say they remember it? Can we agree that the answer is "no"?

(231)
Brian,
March 1, 2011 5:04 PM

When are you receiving your nobel prize?

You write, “the first bacterium with its astounding genetic code was the product of intelligent design. If you have evidence to the contrary, then submit it to a peer reviewed journal”. You want me to prove that bacteria were NOT intelligently designed? Just to clarify, are you saying that if ID has not been disproven, then it must be true? This is a yes or no question. Follow up question… what is your evidence for a supernatural creator and have you submitted it to a peer review journal?

(230)
Bob Applebaum,
March 1, 2011 4:56 PM

Burden Of Proof & Logic

Mr. Averick doesn't understand who has the burden of the proof. Under logic, when making an Existence Claim (EC), the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You are making an EC of a Designer (this would seem to violate one of the 10 Commandments, since you put the Designer before God, unless you are engaged in a game of rhetorical deceit which would violate another of the Commandments). The burden of proof is on you, just like it is for the person who claims the existence of trolls, angels, or unicorns. You should be able to see why this is logically the case, otherwise I can say grettlebies, frogginnaughts, and blerisxs exist, and you would have to concur, until you proved they don't. That would be ridiculous. Under a Universal Claim (UC), the burden of proof falls on the person arguing AGAINST the UC. A UC is something which is universally observed. I can claim that you are on Earth because it is universally known that humans are on Earth. If you said you were on another planet, the burden of proof would be on you. Evolution is universally observed...from stellar evolution to biological evolution to chemical evolution. The burden of disproof is yours. You needn't necessarily do so by proving your EC of a Designer, that is a separate claim which has its own burden of positive evidence. Also it is wrong to describe "God of the Gaps" as an atheistic smokescreen. The term was first used by a Scottish evangelist named Henry Drummond. He and many sophisticated theists realize the lack of logic with the argument. There are many theists who do not like ID because it depends on God of the Gaps and they don't hide from the evidence supporting evolution. They just claim God is behind evolution. Other theists do not like ID because it is an obfuscation (at best) of a fundamental reading of a holy text. On the flip side, there are also ID proponents who are not theists and some who are polytheists.

(229)
Moshe Averick,
March 1, 2011 4:49 PM

REPLY TO BRIAN (223)

BRIAN: I answered your question in the article. I wrote it very carefully, There are two choices: Life from non-life through an unguided, undirected naturalistic process or it was the result of a creative act by a supernatural intelligence. The evidence for an intelligent act of creation is obvious: You are looking at a nanotool filled self replicating piiece of molecular machinery. The funcitonal complexity and sophistication contained in the simplest bacterium is beyond the capacity of human technology. Just as a smiley face in the sand with the words "Hello Brian" is obviously created, and just as a bicycle is obviously created, the bacterium, which is exponentially more functionally complex than the other two, is also obviously created. What is the evidence that life came from non-life in a naturalistic process? None
The truth is obvious

(228)
Moshe Averick,
March 1, 2011 4:43 PM

REPLY TO ARI (22)

ARI: I think you have illustrated my point. Mountains and thunderstorms are not FUNCTIONALLY COMPLEX. You claim that our "pattern recognition" is not a valid source of judgement. Then why do you have no doubt that a smiley face in the sand with the words "Hello ARi, the skeptic" is obviously the result of intelligent design?
If the wind blew the smiley face into a random pattern that was not recognizable, then it would definitely not be designed, it would be exactly what it appeared to be, a random, insignificant, meaningless pattern. Why you call it "designed" is incomprehensible to me. The key term is "functional complexity", a complexity that actually has a purpose, whether it is to perform a mechanical task or convey speicific information, it is "functional complexity" that we are looking for.
I agree that the natrual world is awash in randomness, and therefore I would not conclude the existence of a creator from a random collection of driftwood on a beach. On the other hand if I find a hut on the beach made out of driftwood, I immediately recognize that it is not the result of random forces.
AS I stated explicitly in the article, Darwinian evolution is not the result of randomness, it is the result of the awesome potential and the staggering complexity of the first bacterium and it's incredibly sophisticated genetic code.

(227)
Adam,
March 1, 2011 4:42 PM

Can't or won't?

I’m not sure how to respond to the 39-word, grammatical disaster at the beginning of your last comment. We are talking about YOUR essay. It is YOUR reasoning that is the topic of discussion. The rules of logic and logical fallacies are easiest to understand in standard form. If you look up the definition of, say, the argument from ignorance fallacy, it will be defined in standard form. My request is simple: present your argument in standard form so that any errors can be clearly seen. I’ve actually done the hard part for you. You just have to confirm what I’ve already written. Yet you either can’t or won’t. If you can’t, you are fraudulently presenting yourself as an authority on logic and philosophy. If you won’t, the fact that you refuse to state your position without verbosity, word play, analogies and other distractions confirms your intellectual dishonesty.

(226)
Moshe AVerick,
March 1, 2011 4:33 PM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM (224)

BOB: Of course Wainwright does not support ID. I do not cite one creationist or advocate of Intelligent Design in my book (except myself). Look at how desperate these researchers are. They admit that they cannot conceive of how life started on earth, so it must have come from OUTER SPA\CE! If you were in a courtroom and you had to resort to the outer space theory to explain the innoncence of your client, you would have to be quite desperate. If you want to speculate that life came from outer space, be my guest, but the burden of proof is still on you.
When you prove it let me know, but I will say it over and over: You will never find a plausible, empirically demonstrable naturalistic origin of life. It is your burden to prove me wrong.

(225)
Bob Applebaum,
March 1, 2011 3:43 PM

Out Of Context Quote

Averick qoutes Wainwright's letter. The context of that letter is the advocacy to be reminded that early life may not have originated on Earth, but arrived here from somwhere else (panspermia). It is NOT in support of ID. Wainwright is obviously correct, for even in the broadest sense, the Earth itself is made up of constituents which were originally somewhere else. Here is a link to the letter----- http://journalofcosmology.com/SearchForLife126.html-----
In the narrower sense, protolife or life may have arrived on Earth late in the Earth's evolution. That is certainly possible and the research into the origins of life may show that life only arises under conditions that could not have existed on early Earth. This is why both lab RESEARCH and outer space RESEARCH is important. This is what science is about..getting objective evidence through research from which to draw rational conclusions. "Looks designed" and "intelligence" are not objective evidence, they are subjective intuitions. I have no idea why Wainwright felt the need to remind people of panspermia as it has long been a well known, likely possibility. We have found many of Earth's life's "ingredients", like carbon, amino acids and most recently ammonia, in meteorites. I assume that when Wainwright suggests life may not have had an origin, he is specifically referring to Earth's life, since life requires complex atoms which are formed in stars. The first stars didn't evolve until roughly 100 million years after the Big Bang.

(224)
Brian,
March 1, 2011 1:47 PM

Again, evidence?

"ultimately there are only two choices: life from non-life through some naturalistic process...or a supernatural creator... It must be one or the other." Okay. And what is the evidence that it was a supernatural creator?

(223)
ARI,
March 1, 2011 1:12 PM

Relativity of th Guiding Hand

Moshe, in actuality much does happen without the so-called guiding hand. Mountains are formed, thunderstorms strike, tides recede. These are done by natural forces, the very forces that created and evolved organic life. These forces would also change the smiley face in the sand into a different image, although it may not be an image YOU would recognize (ie, it could be just a random set of lines) - yet it would be "designed" nonetheless. The central flaw in your logic is that it assumes anthropocentric pattern recognition as the basis for all arguments. Humans are programmed to perceive and draw conclusions from patterns, it's how we survive (ie, a falling rock will hurt, steer clear of falling rocks in the future). You conclude that patterns equals guidance, including the massive pattern of evolution, which you concede. Yet nature is awash in randomness, much of which causes the evolution you accept - does that have a guiding hand too?

(222)
Moshe Averick,
March 1, 2011 12:54 PM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM (214)

BOB: "researchers take short cuts in the lab" - Bob, what you have stated is quite instructive. Those who believe that there is a naturalistic origin of life face quite a task in trying to offer conclusive evidence that it actually could and did happen. This is what I've been saying all along: The burden of proof is on them. The fact that demonstrating the truth of this idea is not my problem. CAn you prove it or not? If you're telling me that in ten years they will have conclusive evidence, then call me in ten years, In the meantime I predict that they will never find an answer.

(221)
Moshe Averick,
March 1, 2011 12:49 PM

REPLY TO BRIAN (218)

BRIAN: Darwinian evolution does not offer any explanation at all for the origin of the first self replicating DNA based organism. The reason for this is that Darwinian evolution cannot operate until such an organism is in place, so how could it possibly explain how it got there in the first place?
According to the atheist/materialist view of reality, there had to be a FIRST self replicating organism that emerged either through blind luck or some natural process that no one has yet figured out. If you feel that such a thing is possible then prove it.
What I said was that all scientists agree that it is completely absurd to posit that a bacterium emerged in one lucky jump. That is too much to swallow even for the most determined materialist. Therefore IF life emerged natrualistically there must have been simpler stages. This is your burden to prove. At this point there is no evidence that "simple" self replication could have taken place in a natural setting. I simply draw the obvious conclusion, the first bacterium with its astounding genetic code was the product of intelligent design. If you have evidence to the contrary, then submit it to a peer reviewed journal and not only will you be awarded the million dollar Origin of Life Prize (google it), but you will win a Nobel Prize also.

Hans,
March 14, 2011 1:50 PM

Million Dollar Prize

About the remark of the million dollar prize, what is it supposed to "prove" that the prize money has not yet been paid? It does not prove that abiogenesis is impossible.
If a million dollar prize was offered for proof that God exists, would you expect this money to be won quickly and if not, would you then accept that as proof that God did not exist? If not, why not?

(220)
Moshe Averick,
March 1, 2011 12:35 PM

REPLY TO ADAM (217) FROM MOSHE AVERICK

ADAM: The other possibility of course is that you are the one who is engaged in convoluted reasoning and you are not understanding what I am saying and you as yet do not understand the flaws in your own thinking.
In my opinion most of what Bob and Ari have said is not sensible; if you are not prepared to keep clarifying what the disagreement is, there isn't much point in writing. Just to make accusations that I am engaged in circular reasoning or for me to accuse you of the same does not really get us anywhere.
If you want to point out to me where I am engaged in circular reasoning I am more than prepared to consider what you say. I will restate my point in the simplest way I know possible.
In my opinion there is no difference between looking at a bacterium and looking at a smiley face in the sand with the words "Good morning Adam" next to it, except that the bacterium is exponentially more functionally complex. Both are obviously the products of an intelligent designer. If you want me to believe differently then prove it. Why is that circular reasoning?

(219)
Brian,
March 1, 2011 2:46 AM

"in one jump"?

In #188 you wrote, “the first bacterium with its genetic code can only be the result of an act of creation by a supernatural creator”. If it can only be the result of an act of creation, then you are implying that bacteria did not have an evolutionary predecessor. You also wrote, “the bacterium was clearly designed to evolve.” Do these comments not imply that a bacterium was the first entity capable of evolving? You now write,”it is impossible for something as functionally complex as a bacterium to emerge from non-life in one jump without a Creator.” What is your evidence that bacteria emerged from non-life “in one jump”?

(218)
Adam,
February 28, 2011 11:54 PM

Re: "Why don't you just point out exactly where you feel my logic is flawed? Wouldn't that be easier?"

I already have. So have Bob, Greg, Ari, et al. Your response is always the same: to conclude that a bacterium is design "is eminently rational and reasonable." Why does this keep happening? One possibility is that either you or we don't know what rational means. Given your recent use of the grammatically incorrect phrase "pure reason", I suspect that it is you. You can prove me wrong by explaining what the words reasonable, rational, and logical mean - words that you've used several times. A second possibility is that your argument is so convoluted that those of us calling it illogical are missing your brilliant, air-tight logic. A third possibility is that your argument is so convoluted that you yourself cannot see the fallacies and circular reasoning. If the second or third possibility is the case, then presenting your argument in standard form should clarify things. Presenting your argument in this form should not be a challenge for someone who has "taught religious philosophy for nearly 30 years".

(217)
Moshe Averick,
February 28, 2011 5:46 PM

MOSHE AVERICK REPLY TO TAILOR (211) AND ANONYMOUS (212)

TAILOR: You did not read the article carefully. There obviously were not people around 3.5 billion years ago to create bacteria. It doesn't matter where you start, eventually you reach the conclusion that for life to begin, ultimately there are only two choices: life from non-life through some naturalistic process that no one yet understands, or a supernatural creator. Please re-read the article. It must be one or the other.
ANONYMOUS: You are obviously deeply misinformed about the state of Origin of Life research. SCientists have no clue as to how life started naturalistically. AS I and others (including non-believers) have pointed out (see the article) Darwinain Evolution is irrelevant to the whole question of the existence of a Creator. Therefore the atheist catechism which seems to be repeated by atheists everywhere called "God of the Gaps" is nothing more than an atheistic propoganda smokescreen. "GAP" implies a solid wall with a few openings to be filled in here and there. As far as science addressing the oriign of the staggering functional complexity of the living world, it has not even begun to make a dent. It is not God of the "gaps". It is God of the wide open spaces (like the US -Mexican border or even better, the US-Canadian border) Here is Dr. Milton Wainwright in The Journal of Cosmology, 1/31/2010: SO MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE THAT IT MIGHT SEEM THAT LITTLE ELSE NEEDS TO BE SAID. DESPITE THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE OR CONVINCING EVIDENCE IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT LIFE ORIGINATED ON EARTH FROM SIMPLE CHEMICALS..ARE WE GETTING ANY CLOSER TO AN UNDERSTANDEING OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE?...THE REALITY IS THAT , DESPITE THE EGOS OF SOME, THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE REMAINS A MYSTERY. IT IS NOT MERELY THAT BIOLOGY IS SCRATCHING THE SURFACE OF THIS ENIGMA; THE REALITY IS THAT WE HAVE YET TO SEE THE SURFACE.
That about says it all.

(216)
Bob Applebaum,
February 28, 2011 5:07 PM

Matter and Time

To ayla - regarding atoms - look up "The Standard Model". Atoms evolved from subatomic particles (leptons and quarks) and particles of force (bosons). P.S. They "look designed" too, or no they don't. Make it up, what do you want it to be? HA! Time is a function of entropy and gravity. It only goes in one direction because entropy only goes in one direction OVERALL (from low entropy to high entropy). However, time is not linear, it is affected by acceleration (including gravitational acceleration). The faster X is accelerated relative to another object, time will slow down for X relative to the time experienced by the other object. This is the theory of general relativity. When you consider the great scientific contributions of researchers to humanity, like Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Borlaugh, Haber, Pasteur, etc. notice that they weren't sitting in their armchairs and they weren't rabbis.

(215)
Bob Applebaum,
February 28, 2011 4:50 PM

Peach Colored Paint Is Dishonest Rhetoric

The processes used by researchers like purification, etc. are employed as short cuts in the lab, because no one wants to or actually can take millions of years to allow life to evolve as it originally did. The lab is a proxy for the early Earth and we're trying to understand the evolution of life within the next decade or so, if not sooner. Researchers necessarily take shortcuts and once we see life fully evolve, and know the shortcuts, we will relate those to natural processes that take much longer. Peach Colored Paint is a childish distraction. To ayla - you have made my point about the anthill. "Looks designed" & "intelligence" are subjective. Does an anthill look more designed than a molecule, pinecone, snowflake, mountain range or solar system? How so? Is an ant intelligent? In real science, we employ objective measurable quantitites like velocity, mass, number of carbon atoms, etc. Not subjective psychological interpretations like "looks designed", "looks ugly", "doesn't look awesome", "lazy", "intelligent", etc.. Averick has dishonestly avoided my repeated question on defining the critieria for what looks designed, because he knows it is a no win situation. It boils down to either everything looks designed (in which case no point in focusing on life) or nothing does (which doesn't advance his agenda). If the Intelligent Designer only designed the bacteria, who designed the atoms, molecules, solar system, mountains, etc.? One also can't propose traditional Judiasm and ID at the same time. In traditional Judiasm God creates everything. In Averick's version of ID, the Designer(s) only create a bacteria. So which is it?

(214)
Mike,
February 28, 2011 3:52 PM

Reply to Bob Applebaum, Brian, and M Mos

M Mos--I think you misunderstood my position. If you read my first post (other than the ironic one about aliens), I wrote that life origins is an area where we have imperfect information, and both positions seem at least intellectually plausible. What I objected to was atheists who reacted to ID theories with what seemed like a comic level of outrage. Brian--I know what an argument from ignorance is. I was using the two phrases in conjunction as a play on words. Bob--You did change your analogy, though I'll admit Coke was involved both times (maybe the second time it was New Coke?). And here you go getting outraged again, this time about an imagined notion that I posited a singular beginning, probably because like everyone else in the 200 comments below, I wrote "the beginning" for simplicity's sake. You keep bringing up the Bronze Age and how in 10,000 years the idea of a creator was always wrong (in your opinion) as if this is an actual argument against ID. But it's not an argument. It's just your opinion. It's your intuition, your sense of things. And that's fine. But why can't you accept that reasonable people can differ with you about that?

(213)
Anonymous,
February 28, 2011 3:39 PM

reply to ayla

Thanks, I was wondering where the god of the gaps argument will retreat next after abiogenesis is understood. Where did matter and time come from?You don't know? Proof there is a God!

(212)
Tailor,
February 28, 2011 2:14 PM

Evidence?

"I would not seriously consider the possibitlity that God directly made the smiley face - that is based on my experience of the way things usually work. I would need a reason to consider the possibility of a supernatural act of God." In other words, there is evidence that suits, poems, and smiley faces are made by people, and no evidence these things are made by God. Thus, you don't consider the possibility that God made these things. So what is the evidence that God created the first bacterium and designed it to evolve?

(211)
ayla,
February 28, 2011 6:26 AM

Matter and time

Wow - a lot of disdain from the "I only believe in science crowd". I am only a humble biologist, but here's my take on this. First - thank you, Rabbi, for this interesting article and approach to understanding the perplexing array of matter around us. The origins of life questions have been pretty well addressed, but I haven't seen any theories proposed on the origin of atoms... or subatomic particles... or more curious: the laws that they obey. Aliens might be given credit for seeding life on earth (for those who do not want to credit a Creator with this accomplishment), but from whence came the Hydrogen atom that is part of the molecules of life? And what about time itself? Everyone talks about it as if it were a constant flowing thing, but what is time really - is it linear, is it finite? Is it just "the happening of events"? For those commenters on here that scoff at the Rabbi's explanation of the Creator existing outside of time - do we really have any reason to believe that time encompasses all things in the same way? Oh, and as for the denial of the evolution of the 747 - I have to disagree - it has gone through quite the "evolutionary" process - by the mind and hands of men - the "intelligent designers", if you will. @ Bob Applebaum - you stated that the ant hill doesn't look designed - but you see only the excavated material - inside, below that hill, it looks very designed. And one more thing, many evolutionists here are saying that we simply need to wait for science to tell us how life began by random undirected combinations of atoms - that the answer is available, just as yet unknown. The same can be said for our Creator - wait and in time, He will be revealed.

(210)
M Mos,
February 28, 2011 6:01 AM

beginning

Mike--- you make a distinction between talking about the evolution of life over time and the beginning of life, but there isn't necessarily such a distinction. It's only theists who insist that life came into being suddenly; while scientists suggest a gradual process in which no step has great odds against it. We see that gradual process in the organisms as far back as we have fossil records, and the fossil records are only incomplete due to the types of organisms and the passage of several billion years. There's no reason to think that gradual change hasn't been the entire history of life. And we are not more ignorant now than 50 years ago about the origins of life. Claiming that the problem can never be solved on the basis of holes in our knowledge about something SEVERAL BILLION YEARS AGO (uh... do you think there would be a few holes?) is indeed the Argument from Ignorance. To clarify my opinion, I think that anyone who claims certain knowledge about how life must have originated is attached to a particular position. There is obviously great uncertainty. I have more interest in the view of people who see it as an unsolved problem to be approached with new theories and new evidence, rather than people who flatly declare it's unsolvable.

(209)
Brian,
February 28, 2011 12:54 AM

Reply to Mike

Firstly, your "argument from increased knowledge" statement illustrates that you don't know what an argument from ignorance is. You clearly know how to use the internet. Educate yourself. Secondly, I'll pose the same question to you that I am still waiting for the Rabbi to answer. How do you know that the first self replicating entity that formed from inorganic matter was a bacterium?

(208)
MOSHE AVERICK,
February 27, 2011 11:32 PM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM

BOB: Even though it is just chemistry, and much simpler chemistry than the highly complex macromolecules that comprise RNA, you would never expect Peach Colored Sherwin Williams Latex Paint to appear in a prebiotic swamp. It is synthetic chemistry, meaning intelligently engineered chemistry. This is what is going on the laboratory of the prebiotic chemist. Just read one of the protocols for reproducing an experiment by Gerald Joyce or Jack Szostak. They require purifiaction, quenching, refrigerating, isolating one chemical from a mixture, then mixing it exclusively with another particular chemical, many times they have to left overnite in isolation, they have to be put in centrifuges, etc. These are manufacturing processes, not naturally occuring reactions. Stanley Miller's experiment was completely natural, He ended up with a lot of gunk (tar) and a few amino acids. By all accounts the experiment went nowhere in helping anyone understand a natural emergence of life.

(207)
Moshe Averick,
February 27, 2011 11:26 PM

REPLIES FROM MOSHE AVERICK

ADAM: (191)Why don't you just point out exactly where you feel my logic is flawed? Wouldn't that be easier?
BRIAN (194) I never said that. The facts on the ground are that the simplest living organism that has ever been known to exist is a bacterium. There is no evidence that anything simpler did exist. AS it stands now, if you want to assert a naturalistic origin of life, it requires a natural pathway from non-life to a bacterium. No scientist believes that life started with a bacterium; that is because the all accept the Design Argument. It is impossible for something as functionally complex as a bacterium to emerge from non-life in one jump without a Creator. Therefore they deduce that if life emerged naturalistically , there had to be a large number of steps to go from non-life to bacterium. This is what the RNA-world hypothesis is all about. The problem is finding any evidence that it actually happened.
ARI (200) I am certain that soon we will be cranking out millions of nanomachines at will: All of them the product of intelligent design, just like bacterial cells.
I never said a smiley face could evolve without a guiding hand. I said that for arguments sake I would be prepared to concede the fact of Darwinian evolution.
In other words, once the incredible, awe-inspiring, staggeringly complex and sophisticated bacterium, with its asountding genetic was created by God, he programmed into it the ability to evolve. Do you know what happens without a guiding hand? Exactly what you would expect: nothing at all.
TO INCREDULOUS (199) The world is in God, God is not in the world. The question you have raised is an entirely different topic which would require a separate essay. It is not something to be discussed as a simply reply to a question.

(206)
M Mos,
February 27, 2011 9:52 PM

experience with origin

Rabbi, next question is: does anyone have direct experience of the origin of life? Was anyone around when the first bacterium was designed (or came into existence)? Can anyone say they remember it? Can we agree that the answer is "no"?

(205)
Bob Applebaum,
February 27, 2011 8:35 PM

Not At ALL!

I didn't change my Coca Cola "argument"...it was an analogy. Using analogies is a way to use a familiar concept to explain an unfamiliar one. So any changes I made, are just attempts at explanation, not point by point precise overlay. The problem with your supposition is your THAT THERE WAS A SINGULAR BEGINNING! As if there was a singular event and life spontaneously arose in one instance in time. That is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. In any event, ID is the same argument people made 10,000 years ago. And for 10,000 years, there has been no evidence of a creator. It failed to explain the complexity of volcanos, thunder, etc. No one today thinks thunder just poofs into existence. It seemed complex once, no more. Complexity is a human description, nature just is what it is. Other logical fallacies have been pointed out. Why do you ignore those fallacies? One fallacy is enough to say, "that's wrong". For about 200 years, there's been millions of pieces of evidence for evolution and it is logically coherent. There are no logical fallacies to try to fabricate a solution for. There is also no limit to the level of complexity that can evolve. If complexity is your rational, then humans had to be poofed out of thin air because they are more complex than bacteria. I trust you don't think that, so you must realize that "complexity" is not a valid rational. Just because a bacteria is more complex than a virus, doesn't mean the bacteria was magically poofed into existence. At least Michael Behe (ID proponent) had the intellectual honesty to state that if an "irreducably complex" biological system could be found that would be evidence of ID. However, none has ever been found!!! Every complex biological system has traceable, simpler pre-systems. Behe DOES NOT say a bacterium is irreducable complex. Bacteria have evolved from simpler beginnings. Lookup protobionts, nanobes, nanobacteria, prions, endosymbiosis, and endogenous retrovirus.

(204)
Bruce,
February 27, 2011 8:19 PM

WHAT ABOUT ADAM AND EVE?

So, Rabbi, based on your argument, are you now stating for the record that the story of Adam and Eve is a concocted fairy tale?

(203)
Mike,
February 27, 2011 6:50 PM

Argument from Increased Knowledge

Bob, you changed your Coca Cola argument once I pointed out how it subverted itself, but let's move on to your new argument--that we see evolutionary change over time through naturalistic processes, so the beginnings of life also came through naturalistic processes. This misses the point. We're not talking about evolution over time. We're talking about the beginning. It was easier 50 years ago than it is now to believe a naturalistic process brought about the first self-replicating bacterium. We now know more about the the vastness of the cell's complexity and the difficulties of such an organism forming out of inorganic matter. So while people are calling the rabbi's article an argument from ignorance, it is in any case an argument based on increased knowledge.

(202)
Bob Applebaum,
February 27, 2011 2:52 PM

Get Real

Mike - we know Coca Cola was created by people. We can go and watch it being made. We see the evolution of life by physical processes. That is reality. You can accept the observations or not, but they aren't going away. To M.Averick - setting up lab conditions to replicate the natural conditions which evolved on early Earth is not intelligently designing life. The researchers are not designing life, they are allowing chemical constituents to act according to electrochemistry. What happens, happens. No design. To anyone else: imagine you're in a calculus class, the teacher gives you a tough problem. You start to work on it, getting through some intermediate steps, when suddenly your classmate, Moshe shouts "5 is the answer". You are stunned, because you had noticed Moshe hasn't even done any work. "5?", the teacher asks, "how so?". Moshe replies, "it just looks like the answer is 5 to me. The problem is very complicated and I have no need to work it out. No one else in the class has an answer yet, so it must be 5! And besides, other problems have 5 as an answer." Should Moshe be provided any respect for his opinion that 5 is the answer? Of course not. Now take an oncology class. You've been assigned to write a paper about the onset of cancer, to learn about mutations, oncogenes, etc. Your classmate Moshe comes in with a one page paper that says "cancer is intelligently designed". "How so Moshe?" asks the teacher. Moshe says, "Well, it's complicated,and it looks designed. When I see a car, I know it is designed, and when I see cancer I see design. It has lots of components that work well together, and no one else can fully explain it. It occurs under specific conditions, so that shows design". Would you want Moshe as your oncologist compared with someone who actually works to try to understand cancer? I hope you can see the parallels here. "Looking designed" isn't an explanation. It's an anti-explanation from the Bronze Age.

(201)
ARI,
February 27, 2011 2:35 PM

THE SINGLE BIGGEST ERROR

This one aspect that is being constantly overlooked here: the entire design/complexity premise is based on the sole vantage point of a human brain (oh my! it looks so nano-complicated to us, even with our great technology, we can't reproduce this!) This is problematic on every level. Humans are but a tiny speck of living matter in a natural universe so vast it cannot be fully comprehended by our puny brains. Accept this, and all these points/counterpoints fall by the wayside. Add the massive passage of time to the mix, and things fall apart even quicker - 200 years ago not a soul on earth could even THINK about designing/making a cellphone; ergo, in 100 hence perhaps we'll be cranking out millions of nano objects at our will. Finally the origin/evolution argument has no philosophical ground to stand on. You are so convinced that a random gust of wind could never make a smiley face on the beach (ie, it HAD to be designed), yet you allow that over time that smiley face could evolve to another image without a supernatural hand. If nature could accomplish that feat, why not the first, there is no essential difference when viewed in this light. (Dawkins indeed could have been an atheist prior to Darwin).

(200)
Incredulous,
February 25, 2011 10:48 PM

Paradox

If your creator is "composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space" - how can it be involved in our daily lives or influence us in any way?
You said it yourself, that in order to be infinitely complex as to have created the universe, said creator must exist outside of it. Therefore, it cannot exist inside of it.
Why, then do you still believe that your creator can hear your prayers and intervene in your life? How can you think that after your death you will be taken to a place outside of the universe to be one with your creator?
Because god told you so? Please. Think of all the time wasted on trying to prove a creator and instead imagine it being spent on the pursuit of knowledge that can actually help humanity's current problems.

(199)
Moshe Averick,
February 25, 2011 7:56 PM

REPLY TO MMOS (190)

In the example you gave, I would agree that while it might be understandable why someone would come that conclusion, from the standpoint of pure reason, it would be a mistake to make that generalization.

(198)
Moshe Averick,
February 25, 2011 7:51 PM

REPLIES FROM MOSHE AVERICK

(187) Tailor
If I see a smiley face in the sand I immediately conclude that it is a result of an intelligent conscious act of creation. My experience tells me that the intelligent force behind this is almost certainly a human being. I would not seriously consider the possibitlity that God directly made the smiley face - that is based on my experience of the way things usually work. I would need a reason to consider the possibility of a supernatural act of God.

(197)
Moshe Averick,
February 25, 2011 7:44 PM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM (186)

Bob , you are almost there. What chemists have proved by creating RNA in the laboratory is that you need intelligent designers to create RNA. Brilliant Chemists, sophisticated lab equipment equals Intelligent Design, not naturalistic emergence of life in a prebiotic swamp. To prove that RNA could emerge naturalistically you need to do dump inorganic chemicals in a pool and see what happens by itself, minus the intelligent intervention of scientists. We all agree that it is chemistry.
These are your words: "This is evidence that a self replicating code HAS EVOLVED under certain environmental conditions with no supernatural intervention required...just chemistry"
The "certain environmental conditions" are conditions created in the laboratory by the most briliant of scientists with cutting edge technology. None of this was available on the ancient earth.
Let's say you discovered the formula of Coca Cola and reproduced it in a chemistry lab (which is essentially what is done). you have proved that Coca Cola is the result ot intelligent design. Dump inorganic chemicals in a prebiotic soup and you will not get Coca Cola or Peach Colored latex paint. You will get gunk. Everyone agrees that Benjamin Moore Latex paint is just chemistry, but it is the result of intelligently designed chemistry, not an undirected process. The same goes for RNA.
You have misunderstood what I meant when I said that the first bacterium was created by a Supernatural creator. The steps are as follows: A. The bacterium requires an intelligent designer. B. The philosophical dilemma of the infinitely regressing series of creators leads us the conclusion that ultimately there has to be a Creator who was the beginning of it all. C. This creator can only outside of time, space , matter , energy
i.e. Supernatural. The main point is that an intelligent Creator is required, it just so happens that this creator must be supernatural.

(196)
Arthur Kogut,
February 25, 2011 6:20 PM

Yom Hashishi

Whenever I see a suit, I know it was created by a tailor. When I see a calculator, I know it was created by someone, but probably not the tailor. When I see a 747, I'm pretty sure the tailor did not build it.
I think the Greek's may have had the God thing right.
If only there was a theory stringing together evidence to explain how we've arrived at the "complexities" we see today.
Excuse me, I've got to get ready for Shabbos dinner with the inlaws.

(195)
Brian,
February 25, 2011 4:39 PM

Still confused...

How do you know that bacteria with its genetic code was the first entity capable of evolving?

(194)
Mike,
February 25, 2011 4:05 PM

The Formula for Coca Cola

Bob, I agree that if someone said you needed a supernatural creator to create Coca Cola, that would be nuts, but you do need a creator. Coca Cola was invented. Can you imagine Coca Cola being created by chance in the prehistoric world? Just as factory workers manipulate ingredients to produce Coke, laboratory technicians manipulate RNA components in attempting their experiments. And the main thrust of Rabbi Averick's article, or at least its most interesting section, makes it clear that a self-replicating bacteria is much more complex than the trademarked formula for Coca Cola.

(193)
Adam,
February 25, 2011 2:24 PM

Reply to Shoshana

My basic point is that the Intelligent Design proves the existence of aliens as much as it proves the existence of God. In other words, it proves nothing. If you want to instead argue for the existence of God based on Revelation (as you have in your last two comments), that's fine. But at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're abandoning ID as evidence for God.

(192)
Adam,
February 25, 2011 1:22 PM

You can't follow?

You have used the words logical, reasonable, and philosophical repeatedly throughout this discussion, often in all caps. Your essay is under the subsection of this website entitled "philosophy". Your bio says that you have taught religious philosophy for nearly 30 years. Yet, when I summarize your own argument in a series of syllogisms in standard form you can't follow it? Several people, including me, have commented that your arguments are illogical. You repeatedly say that they are logical. Logic isn't subjective, so we can't both be right. Can you explain what you mean when you say that something is "logical"?

(191)
M Mos,
February 25, 2011 5:33 AM

simpler question

Rabbi, let's go simpler. I would like to see if you agree with an idea, and not worry for the moment where it leads before we first see if we are on the same page. Is there a logical problem in generalizing from known situations to unknown situations? For instance, if I grow up in a cruel family and get the idea that all families are cruel and that there is no God because of what happened to me, is that not a problem in generalizing from the only kind of family unit I know to the nature of other families or the nature of all existence? I just want to see if we agree on that part first. Then we can figure out where it leads. Thanks.

(190)
Shoshana E.,
February 24, 2011 11:15 PM

Reply to Adam

Listen- we are going in circles. Your basic point is that there might be a third solution to this
that doesn't make any sense currently but maybe one day will.
Living your life according to that is a much bigger leap of faith than working with what we have now.
The day the aliens make themselves known, I will jump on the bandwagon with the rest of you.
I am prepared to follow
truth no matter what the consequences are.
That is the advantage of always rooting for the
winning team, and right now- it looks like team Designed is heading to the SuperBowl. For now, I will make this decision like any other decision I make in my life- look at the facts honestly, weigh the options, and DECIDE- not based on having COMPLETE CLARITY,but on which one is MORE logical.
Practically speaking, I would never throw a rock at someone's car on the premise that
it is POSSIBLE that it will suddenly stop in midair and fly back towards me, to land
neatly in my hand, without incurring damage to either the car or myself. Of course it's POSSIBLE-
it's just not PROBABLE. Everybody agrees on a simple level.
When it comes to choosing a doctor, or a university, no one uses these kind of arguments.
No-only with issues of cosmic importance does logic suddenly fly out the window.
Good luck on your search for truth.
Shoshana
P.S. Speaking of oxymorons- what would you call "temporally infinite"?

(189)
Moshe Averick,
February 24, 2011 7:26 PM

REPLY TO BRIAN AND ADAM

BRIAN - 185
The argument that I presented purports to demonstate exactly what I stated: The first bacterium with its genetic code can only be the result of an act of creation by a supernatural creator; assuming for arguments sake that neo-Darwinian theory is valid (I conceded it for arguments sake) then the bacterium was clearly designed to evolve,
ADAM: I'm having a hard time following your formulations in formal logic, I conced that this might be my fault, so what I stated is the clearest presentation of the step by step argument that I could come up with. I don't see the point you are trying to make. What is unclear about what I wrote? Perhaps that might be a better way of approaching it.

(188)
Anonymous,
February 24, 2011 4:15 PM

Tailor

If you see a smiley face in the sand with the words, "The Design Argument" next to it, would you conclude it was put there by a person or by God? Why?

(187)
Bob Applebaum,
February 24, 2011 4:05 PM

Yes, I Can Rule Out Intelligent Design

Mike - when the researchers say something like "they aren't sure they have it", they are referring to the uncertainty in knowing what the early Earth's environment was, and what actual steps led to the first actual life. They cannot know with certainty that the lab environment is an accurate proxy for the early Earth. They know that uncertainty exists, as I do, as everyone should. I may not know the recipe for Coca-Cola, but if I analyze it for the ingredients, and then obtain and mix those ingredients and get Coca-Cola, then I've shown that Coca-Cola is just the result of mixing certain ingredients together. I may not be using the same mixing process that the company uses, but if the company said a supernatural power is required to make Coca-Cola, I would have demonstrated that to be not true. The researchers have shown that RNA EVOLVED IN THE LAB from its constituents. This is evidence that a self replicating code HAS EVOLVED under certain environmental conditions with no supernatural intervention required...just chemistry. There is NO evidence of supernatural creation. There IS evidence of chemical evolution. We can all rule out intelligent design very simply on that basis alone, let alone all the other reasons I've listed, as well as others. Averick "logic" returns to the Bronze Age, where so many natural phenomena were explained as acts of the gods. We know that that line of thinking has been unproductive. We know thunder, earthquakes, eclipses, etc. are not caused by the gods. Life is just another natural phenomenon that has taken a bit longer to understand than some of the others. But by going backwards into Bronze Age "goddidits", is to embrace a method of epistemology which has never produced a greater understanding of any natural phenomena. My motivation is critical thinking and honesty. I am not selling a book or involved in promoting magic. You should be asking what Averick's motivation is.

(186)
Brian,
February 24, 2011 3:17 PM

How do you think humans got here?

Hello Rabbi, I'm having trouble understanding your assertion. Are you asserting a) Humans were created from scratch by a Creator, or b) Bacteria were created from scratch and were designed to evolve into humans. Or are neither of these what you mean to say? Thanks, Brian.

(185)
Hans,
February 24, 2011 2:23 PM

Logic? Proof?

Just to make my position clear: I am not a pure atheist - that is, I do not claim to know that God doesn't exist - but I need more than dodgy speculation on ONE as yet not scientifically proven origin-of-life scenario. Since no scientist was present when it happened, true believers like you will continue to dismiss any experimental evidence with the argument that the conditions of the experiment did not arise naturally but were set up by the experimenters. What kind of logic is this? Using the court analogy, would a court dismiss evidence gathered from the re-enactment of a crime on the basis that the re-enactment was not performed by the original perpetrator? At the same time you compare the origin of inorganic things with the origin of organic things, involving entirely different processes, and see no contradiction in your logic and methodology. If you are not going to adhere to scientific principles, stop pretending that you are presenting a scientifically sound argument! Also philosophically, your argument is dodgy. You admit that an infinite regression of intelligent designers poses a problem, but, because you can not think of an alternative philosophical solution, you come with the cop-out of an supernatural being of whose existence no-one has any proof. How about this alternative solution, if infinite regression is not possible, could it be that the origin of life just did not happen through creation by intelligent design but by natural processes? Although either solution can not yet be proven conclusively, my solution requires no invention of an unproven entity with magical abilities such as that it exists , yet it does "not exist in Time or Space and is neither matter nor energy." Where is the proof that such a form of existence is even possible?

(184)
Hans,
February 24, 2011 2:17 PM

To M Mos. I am not sure where you are going with your thought experiment. Do you mean sympathy for the IDEA that a cruel Intelligent Designer could exist? I would say that if I wanted to entertain the idea of an intelligent designer, the evidence of nature would point me to a capricious or cruel designer. How a supposedly superior intellect with the wish to create life can at the same time have the infantile mind of a cruel child is not clear to me. But I would be more inclined to think of the existence of a Cosmic Joker than of a caring God. I don't see how we are supposed to feel sympathetic towards such a cruel being, but it seems to satisfy M Averick since he does not seem to care that his deity allows for bad and cruel designs that allow destructive diseases to ravage mankind.

(183)
David,
February 24, 2011 2:09 PM

Baloney.

"The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit. The existence of a poem on a piece of paper implies the existence of the poet who created that poem." This argument might be relevant or possibly even good if suits and poems were capable of giving birth to other suits and poems. As suits and poems never do that, the argument is just plain dumb. Moreover, the "stuff exists so it must have been created" argument is no better nor any more useful than "the Creator exists so He must have been created by a bigger, smarter Creator" argument. It does nothing but shove the question back a step. This whole article is razzle-dazzle for simple minds, and a waste of time.

(182)
Adam,
February 24, 2011 2:01 PM

You didn't answer the question

I asked if the formal logic in comments #147 and #148 accurately represents your argument. By presenting your argument formally, it is easier to see if the syllogisms are valid. Repeating your argument ad nauseum in the same way is not helpful at this point. So, I'll ask again, do comments #147 and #148 accurately represent your argument? If not, how would modify what I have written?

(181)
moshe averick,
February 24, 2011 9:19 AM

REPLY TO MMOS 176

Nowhere in the article, or in my book for that matter do I claim that the design argument implies a Deity with a plan that does not allow for bad design. I don't know where you came up with such an idea. The Design Argument Implies the following; The first living bacterium and its genetic code were assembled intentionally by a Supernatural Creator who does not exist in Time or Space and is neither matter nor energy. That's all it asserts, nothing more. For the rest, you have to read the other 8 chapters.

(180)
Moshe Averick,
February 24, 2011 9:14 AM

REPLY TO MMOS

" if I claimed that God wrote a silly message"
We are not talking about if God wrote a message in the sand, we are talking about how the very first living bacterium came into existence. Was it a natural process or was it the product of intelligent design. Your analogy has nothing to do with the issue here
"Hearts are different because they are alive"
That is a purely artificial and arbitrary "difference"
Does being alive mean that it is MORE functionally complex or LESS functionally complex. We build kidneys, they are called dialysis machines. Can a bio-medical engineer build a filter like a kidney that can fit into someone's back? The engineer tells us that our technology is not advanced enough to accomplish that feat. The human body is nothing more than an organic machine. The technology required for us to duplicate it is beyond our capabilities. This makes the question stronger, not weaker.
"The burden of proof" - If you want to call it "intuition" that tells us that a smiley face in the sand with the words, "The Design Argument" next to it, is the product of intelligent design, then it is an intuition upon which we base every experience in our lives. What you call it is irrelevant, the simple fact is that every human being who has not lost touch with reality accepts and knows it to be true. The same holds true for my suit, the computer I am writing this on, the sonnet I just read by Shakespeare, and the digitally encoded information contained in the DNA of a bacterium that constructs thousands of proteins every minute.
If you want to deny this, I don't really know what to say to you. I don't understand why you are making a distinciton.

(179)
Moshe Averick,
February 24, 2011 8:58 AM

REPLY TO ADAM - 171

Adam, nothing sinister, just lost the thread with all the other comments.
As follows:
A. I do not need to prove that a smiley face in the sand was created, because all human beings accept that there all levels of functional complexity beyond which could not be the result of an undirected process. In other words, the level of functional complexity itself is the evidence.
B. If you want to assert that a smiley face, or a bacterium, (which is certainly over the minimum functional complexity required) are the result of an undirected process., the burden of proof is on you.
c. There is no evidence that life can emerge from non-life through an undirected process, therefore the obvious truth still stands; the bacterium was created by an intelligent force.
D. This intelligent force, as it turns out, must be supernatural, because of the problem of the infinitely regressing series of creators.

(178)
Moshe Averick,
February 24, 2011 8:49 AM

REPLY TO HANS - 170

Hans, you misunderstood what is the significance of Richard Dawkins declaration that before 1859 he could not be an atheist. (Please read the full text of his statement in The Blind Watchmaker, p. 5) Richard Dawkins was stating the obvious: Unless you have some reasonable alternative , the obvious explanation for the "organized complexity of the living world" is an Intelligent Designer. Dawkins' alternative explanation is Darwinian Evolution. Dawkins is mistaken. In order to be operative, Darwinian Evolution must have in place a fully functioning DNA based self replicating bacterium. It must be there BEFORE Darwinian Evolution takes place. Where did it come from? All the organized complexity of the living world is a variation on the theme of the organized complexity of the first bacterium and its genetic code. Scientists do not know how life originated. That means that the original question has never been adressed. In other words, it is if we are back before 1859 with no explanation for the organized complexity of the living world.
All your assertions about bad design or imperfections are irrelevant to our discussion. they might be relevant to a discussion about the truth or falsehood of Darwinian Evolution but for arguments sake I have conceded that point so it is irrelevant.

(177)
M Mos,
February 24, 2011 7:30 AM

gods

Hans, you write that there are many forms of hypothetical designers and that the Rabbi is postulating a grand Deity with a plan, which doesn't allow for the existence of bad design. I have an idea. We could break down the question a bit. I see tangles in it---the Rabbi's article adds tangles by changing his tune frequently (for example, you can "concede Darwin and focus on one-celled life" but continue to write about human heart which have already conceded evolved via natural selection.) Rabbi, I think you need to make your article more focused and stick with the clearest, strongest point. In place of that, let me propose a thought experiment. Let's leave aside the idea of "loving god" or "god with a plan". Challenge question for the atheist position: can you imagine a scenario in which you would have some sympathy for an Intelligent Designer provided that designer could have any characteristics that fit the evidence (it could be like a cruel child, for instance, who pits his creations against each other to the death). To the theist, can you imagine a scenario in which evidence from life pointed not to the God of the Bible but to an intelligent designer quite unlike God? Please try to imagine this scenario---don't just tell me "well it ain't so." I'm interested if there is any conceivable evidence that would modify your concept of God.

(176)
M Mos,
February 24, 2011 1:07 AM

the burden of proof

To M. Averick, you write that you do not need to do research to determine if a bacterium is created or evolved---it is obviously created, you say. I'm curious if your Talmudic learning which stressed the proper use of reasoning ever discussed the problem of improper generalization. Did it ever discuss the logical error of assuming that case B is like case A, thinking that you don't even need to examine the evidence or alternative theories? You write that anyone who wants to contradict your intuition needs to prove it to you. I just don't get it. Your whole essay claims to be using logic to arrive at an answer, and yet you take intuition as absolute truth. Other people have other intuition---why is yours the right intuition? I think you should stop pretending you are using logic and just admit up front you have a gut feeling about this, and be a bit humble and recognize yours is not the only possible gut feeling.

(175)
M Mos,
February 23, 2011 10:36 PM

to M. Averick

You say that if we found writing in the sand with a clear message, I would be laughed out of court if I claimed it happened from undirected processes. Well, let me note that I would also be laughed out of court if I tried to defend myself from a murder charge by claiming God wrote a silly message in the sand. The point here is that everything should be looked at as a unique case, and we should look at all available theories for its origin along with the evidence. Human hearts are different from mechanical pumps in one very huge way---they are alive. That's a very big difference, and one that means we cannot just assume that a principle covering one case (mechanical pumps) would automatically transfer to another case (human hearts) without looking at the evidence. Again, think of the writing in the sand and a courtroom. If a witness had an alternative theory about the origin of this, and you were a lawyer and answered that by saying "I refuse to accept your theory on the basis my mind won't accept it" that would be ridiculous as well. Now, about Hume. You very clearly state that his argument was that we don't have experience of the origin of worlds. Are we on the same page there? You then clearly state the answer to that is---"The Filter and the Pump--Most Definitely Within Our Experience". That's an actual section header. We agree? Now the problem here is that looking at alive things is within our experience, but that's not the issue. The issue is not looking at things that already exist. The issue is the ORIGIN of those things. And no one has any direct experience with that. If you tried to tell me you had direct experience of the origin of human hearts, I would ask if you were present on creation day.

(174)
Bob Applebaum,
February 23, 2011 4:12 PM

Averick Continuing Sidesteps

As Hans points out, Averick continues recycling the Argument from Ignorance. Averick arbitrarily thinks something looks designed, therefore Goddidit...how convenient that he can declare this by fiat from his armchair. Think of the onset of smallpox. It looks designed...imagine if people said, "Goddidit" without research. Well, people did do this for centuries...and then came the Enlightenment, thankfully. Averick's "logic" takes us back to the Dark Ages. We will likely never know exactly how life originated because it originated billions of years ago under very different environmental circumstances than what we have today. No one can prove exactly what those conditions were, because the basis for comparison no longer exists (the Earth has evolved and doesn't exist in that early state). Today, scientists have observed the self assembly of RNA (evolution of RNA from its components) under conditions that MIGHT represent the early Earth. So, when scientists say they "don't know" or "we'll never know how life started", they are referring to the SPECIFIC original life under the SPECIFIC actual early Earth conditions. It is NOT that they are completely clueless. And to describe the environmental proxy lab conditions, as Intelligent Design by the scientists is inaccurate. The RNA is SELF ASSEMBLING, the scientists are just setting up the conditions to mimic a potential early Earth. We don't have a second early Earth to observe. Averick had earlier said this had never been shown to occur, but is has. Averick continues to decline to list the criteria for what "looks designed" and for what looks "intelligently designed". A pinecone looks designed, one might even think it looks intelligently designed. An anthill doesn't look designed, yet is the product of a higher intelligence than the tree. Intelligence is a product of cell communication. Averick fails to explain how intelligence can exist without cells. The Earth looks flat from my armchair...

(173)
Mike,
February 23, 2011 3:07 PM

Reply to Bob Applebaum

It wasn't I who said the experiment did not succeed. Other scientists said it. For example, the origin of life researcher Dr. Robert Shapiro. Even the lead scientist on the project said he wasn't sure he had it right. Likening it to a crossword puzzle, he said he was afraid he'd gotten "one across" wrong. This is all in the New York times. But you are free to feel more sure about the experiment's importance than the lead scientist. We are working from imperfect information when it comes to origin of life, so you cannot rule out intelligent design. That's not Bronze Age thinking, it's simply rational. This is not a courtroom where the rabbi is trying to convict atheists of a crime, he's just explaining why he believes what he does. Your outrage seems out of proportion and probably has other motivations.

(172)
Adam,
February 23, 2011 2:26 PM

In comments #147 and #148 I removed the verbosity, word play, analogies and other distractions so that the substance of your argument could be evaluated. That is when you stopped responding to my questions. Telling...

(171)
Hans,
February 23, 2011 11:41 AM

The Argument from Bad Design IS relevant to This version of the Design Argument!

You keep recycling the Argument from Ignorance. That even Richard Dawkins could not imagine being an atheist before 1859, says nothing about whether it is the right scientific choice NOW after another 150 years of scientific progress. It only shows that scientists did NOT have an agenda to attack belief in God. Even Darwin did not set out to disprove God, but his decades long RESEARCH forced him to the conclusion that life had evolved and that God had not been involved. Richard Dawkins actually bought into the Argument from Design when he was a child. Obviously due to a lack of scientific knowledge. By his mid-teens he had come to reject it as an explanation for complexity. I also did not set out to become a disbeliever, but increased knowledge of observed facts convinced me that my previous beliefs were wrong.
Which brings me back to my earlier unanswered question, "Does Intelligent Design predict the observed facts?" In particular the observation of the many faulty designs in nature?
To M Mos, there is more than one version of the Argument from Design. Some proponents keep their statements vague so that even a designer that produces bad designs will do. It should be clear that M. Averick supports the version that postulates a deity with a plan, in which case bad design won't do. M. Averick needs to acknowledge that his version of the Argument from Design is at odds with the observed facts of bad design in nature. On the other hand, if he intends to argue for any old designer who produces faulty designs than Adam's statement about "aliens" did it, is as acceptable as anything else. As far as I can see, the Argument from Design either does not make predictions that are falsifiable because people are vague about what kind of designer we are talking about, or it makes the wrong predictions because a transcendent deity with a plan does not account for the faulty designs in nature. Therefore it should be obvious why scientists do not take the ID movement seriously.

(170)
,
February 23, 2011 5:52 AM

Aish should add a Religion/Science section. It's been fun reading the post, between the two thought processes hashing it out. I'm for the Goddidit, and could see him saying, 'if you think you know it all how I did this in the past, then why can't you accurately know the future?"

(169)
Moshe Averick,
February 23, 2011 5:06 AM

RE: PBS Special on origins of life

On that PBS special here are the words of distinguished Harvard professor of biology, Dr. Andrew Knoll: "We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances...I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying it's a great mystery." I think that sums up the PBS special.
See the article that appeared in the NYTimes online, 2/21/11 entitled "A Romp in the Theories of the Cradle of Life." A careful reading will reveal that science is still clueless about origin of life, other than speculative theories.

(168)
Moshe Averick,
February 23, 2011 5:01 AM

REPLY TO MMOS (162)

MMOS: Both the electric pump in your chest and the electric pump in today's washing machines do come from similar places: An Intelligent Creator.
If you found a smiley face in the sand with the words "Hello MMOS at Aish.com" written in the sand next to it, and you as an attorney in a court of law tried to assert that it was not the result of an intelligent creator but a natural undirected process, you would be laughed out of court, unless you had conclusive evidence to the contrary. If you want to call that human intuition, be my guest. I would call it an obvious truth that every single human being accepts.
I don't understand your criticism of what I said about Hume. Please write it again and I will be happy to respond. Looking forward.

(167)
Moshe Averick,
February 23, 2011 4:54 AM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM - 161

Dr. Szostak is entitled to do any type of research he wants. I do not need to do research to determine if a smiley face in the sand with the words Hello Bob Applebaum next to is the result of conscious intelligence or is the result of some undirected process. I do not need to do research to determine if a bacterium is the result of a conscious creative act or some undirected process, it is obviously created. If you want me to believe otherwise, prove it!
The disagreement between us is about certain facts, not logic or reason. You are under the mistaken impression that Origin of Life researchers actually are making progress in discovering a naturalistic origin of life. All the research in the RNA-first theory, in fact, has nothing to do with a naturalistic origin of life. It simply proves that brilliant scientists with cutting edge technology at their disposal can do amazing things.
As Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote in 1999 in anticipation of chemists creating self sustained RNA evolving systems in the laboratory: "The concept that the scientists are actually illustrating is one of Intelligent Design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists...prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal." Dr. Szostak has candidly admitted that he does not know how life began and in a recent article even stated that; "The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be forever lost to science."
I am aware he does not believe in God, but that is only because of his faith in science. he is entitled to his faith, it is protected by the constitution. I want to see conclusive evidence that life can come from non-life and there is none.
I don't understand your constant use of the term "godidit". When you see highly sophisticated molecular machinery the obvious conclusion is that it was the result of a conscious creative act.

(166)
Bob Applebaum,
February 22, 2011 8:03 PM

Outrage At Outrageousness

The experiment did succeed. Why would you say it did not? That's one reason for outrage. Another reason is to propose "God's design" or any answer without supporting evidence. That's another reason for outrage. A third reason, is "God's design" is the one answer that has been employed time after time after time, and has never been shown to be correct. The only hope of an answer like that is that an answer supported by evidence is NOT found. Once the answer is found, then the "God's design" answer will be attempted to be used somewhere else. It is intellectual outrageous. It is Bronze Age thinking. Hence the outrage.

(165)
Mike,
February 22, 2011 2:08 PM

PBS solved what, exactly?

The PBS program alluded to by a couple posters did not debunk anything the rabbi said. It proposed to show how two of the components of RNA may have formed, and even in this task it did not succeed, according to much of the mainstream scientific community. Also, the RNA question may not be relevant.
We don't have a scientific answer for life origins. The rabbi thinks it was God's design. You may disagree. So be it. But why so much outrage?

(164)
Bruce,
February 22, 2011 6:01 AM

CONTINUED ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

Dear Rabbi, Your response again repeats a major flaw that persists in all your writing on this subject. You continue to compare the development of biological processes with the creation of man-made items, such as poetry, a smiley face, language, and a suit. These items clearly require a creator, since they are admittedly creations of mankind. You are comparing apples to oranges. The development of biological processes are not man-made, and therefore cannot in any way be compared to the man-made items you repeatedly present. In fact, the comparison is quite silly. Yes, a suit and a poem and a smiley face need a creator. That is irrelevant with regard to a cell. Your contention is that because a poem cannot develop by chance, it therefore follows that a cell cannot, either. That is a false and illogical conclusion. In addition, you refer to a cell's genetic material as "digitally encoded software." But it is not software. You are cleverly trying to skew the perception of genetics towards something that requires design, like a computer. But it is not a computer. A cell's mechanism, and the origin of life itself, is probably the result of millions of years of gradually increasing complexity, forged by natural selection and natural attractive forces in nature. Viruses exist in a transition state between inanimate matter and living cells, consisting primarily of small strips of genetic material surrounded by a simple protein coat. Viruses are not truly alive, but represent a transition between living and non-living. One can see plainly that life developed gradually from the simplest forms. Although the exact detail is not at hand, it certainly makes a lot more sense than an all-powerful creator. Even a cursory examination of these things CERTAINLY blows away the Adam and Eve fairy tale. BTW, your pessimistic prediction that science will never find the answers flies in the face of history. Many men in history have said such things. They have always been wrong.

(163)
M Mos,
February 21, 2011 11:38 PM

reply to M. Averick

Averick writes___The electric pump in your chest is much more sophisticated than either of the others and is immediately recognizable as an electric pump. Whether or not it comes from the same place has nothing to do with out discussion.___ BUT Mr Averick, the argument from design does not claim they come from the SAME place, but from a SIMILAR place. My example of piles of rocks and sand shows why this is a bad assumption. Averick writes ___The ARgument from design IS a universal principle. There are levels of ... functional complexity that the human mind refuses to accept could come about through an undirected process. There are no exceptions, this principle always is assumed to be the truth unless proven otherwise.___ FIRST Mr Averick, what the human mind accepts is irrelevant to logic. Human intuition is not acceptable in a court of law. A detective cannot get away with saying "Well, I just refuse to accept he's innocent." That's absurd, and if the issue of the Creator were not involved I think you would see this immediately. SECOND, there is no such thing in logic as a principle "assumed to be true unless proven otherwise." A statement is either proven true, proven false, or unknown. You can't prove a principle by giving a couple of examples. Try telling that to a logician--- try telling him you've proven something, he asks how, and you say "Well it's true for suits and poems." That's laughable. Or you say "I refuse to accept it's false." Absurd. Averick writes___Your remarks about Hume are not accurate. I am not taling about the origin of the universe, nor the origin of matter. I am talking about the assembly and design of the first living organism and its genetic code___ Mr Averick, In your piece you make it very clear that your answer to Hume is: we DO have experience of living organisms. But now you say here (correctly) the issue is the ORIGIN of organisms. Can you tell me you've talked to someone who has personal experience of creation day?

(162)
Bob Applebaum,
February 21, 2011 10:20 PM

Logical Fallacies A Flyin'

When people like Dawkins and Szostak don't know something, they honestly say they don't know. Rather than sit in an armchair, they do the hard work of research in order to figure out what they don't know. When you don't know something, you dishonestly make up an answer..."goddidit".Not even an attempt at research, because you know it is futile. Please substantiate this remark:"Digitally encoded self replicating molecular machinery does not assemble itself. " I will desubstantiate it-----http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html-----------
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/------------Life is chemistry. Complex chemistry.
Hard working, intelligent researchers are making progress, slow painful progress. They are not speculating and not inserting a singular predetermined answer.

(161)
Juha Jussila,
February 21, 2011 9:43 PM

What if you had lived in the 16th century?

What if you had lived in the 16th century?
[i]Nobody, including Professor Dawkins, has any idea "how life came into being!" It is only this self-deceiving view of reality that allows Dawkins to declare that science has emancipated him from the impulse to attribute the astounding wonders of the living world to a creator. There is no human intellect on the face of the earth that has achieved a "better explanation."[/i]
You would have thought the indisputable evidence of a creator is the fact that the Sun is put right above our heads for warmth and light FOR US.
Indeed, nowadays we now better.
Nobody know how life started, at least not yet. That DOES NOT mean we cannot find it out in the future. And it most certainly does not mean there is a creator.
The second quite annoying thing that you demand empirical evidence, while your on "evidence" is based on the arguments theists have been using throughout ages to proove a god exists.
Oh and as a footnote, why your god?
Why not believe in Zeus? How can you dispute His existence?
Personally, if I were to believe, I would believe in Zeus, because he can throw lighting on people from a superhigh mountain in which they have parties going on 24/7.
I am sorry if there are some errors in my language, I'm from Finland so I don't quite often use english.

(160)
Moshe Averick,
February 21, 2011 5:26 PM

ANOTHER REPLY TO MMOS 154-5

The ARgument from design IS a universal principle.
There are levels of design sophistication and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could have come about through an undirected process. There are no exceptions, this principle always is assumed to be the truth unless proven otherwise. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with it. He said that he could not imagine being an atheist before 1859. This is because unless you have an alternative explanation for the "organzied complexity" of life the obvious answer is a Creator. Dawkins of course is mistaken because Evolution does not explain the origin of the first living bacterium and its genetic code. We are back to the exact same problem and we are back to the obvious answer: It was created unless you can prove otherwise. Darwinian evolution depends on the pre-existence of staggeringly functionally complex molecular machinery and a digital code based self replication system that is beyone the capabilities of human technology to reproduce. (Bill Gates)
Your remarks about Hume are not accurate. Again, I am not taling about the origin of the universe, nor the origin of matter. I am talking about the assembly and design of the first living organism and its genetic code. Digitally encoded self replicating molecular machinery does not assemble itself. It is absurd to suggest such a notion. You need to read the other 3/4 of my section on Origin of LIfe that was not posted to see that science has nothing more potent that purely SPECULATIVE theories as to how life began, or go how simple self replicating molecules could appear on the ancient earth. There is no evidence that such a thing ever actually occured. In fact, my theory predicts that they will never find a plausible empirically demonstable answer. So far I am right. How long do you plan to wait?

(159)
Moshe Averick,
February 21, 2011 5:14 PM

REPLY TO MMOS (150)

You are right, human hearts and refrigerator compressors share features. They are both fully functioning electric pumps that run on the exact same principles of physics as every other pump. I never said they come from the same place. The pump in a Maytag washing machine does not come from the same place as the pump in a Crystal washing machine that is made in France. In fact the Maytag pump is not electric at all. It is mechanical and runs of a belt that is attached the motor that creates the agitation and spin. What they share is that they are both obviously pumps and they are both obviously designed and constructied by an intelligent entity. It is absurd to suggest that any undirected process could construct either. The electric pump in your chest is much more sophisticated than either of the others and is immediately recognizable as an electric pump by any hydraulics engineer. Whether or not it comes from the same place as a Maytag pump has nothing to do with out discussion. I suspect that if the issue of a Creator were not a stake here, nobody in their right mind would even argue this point.

(158)
M Mos,
February 21, 2011 9:24 AM

Hume

M Averick---you write ___"Origin of Life researchers who are intimitely aware of the awesome nanotechnology (Jack SZostak said the the contraptions in a cell would make any nanotechnologist jealous) of the simplest bacterium, know that David Hume's philosophy just does not cut it anymore. They do not say that we don't have to worry about this issue because of Hume, they keep telling us there is a scientific answer. Hume is outdated.(I've avoided the academic question as to whether or not the argument was valid on its own merits.)"___ The way I see it, scientists VALIDATE Hume. The work of biology is confirmation that he was right... that we previously had no evidence whatsoever about the origin of life, and that as we gathered that evidence a picture emerged that was previously inconceivable, and was something we had no experience with. Hume is completely validated. I think you are confusing the idea of whether Hume was right with whether his argument was satisfying at the time. Dawkins is not saying Hume was wrong. He is saying that he would not be satisfied if all he had was Hume and had no modern biology. But the achievements of biology are monumental. If you look at the past 150 years it is astonishing how far biology has come. It has come from very little notion of the inner workings of life all the way to a detailed picture of the history of life on Earth and all sorts of evidence for an undirected process of gradual change... evidence from fossils, from DNA, from observation of the variety of living creatures. There is a staggering amount of evidence, all of which cross-correlates. Then DNA evidence validates the fossil evidence and vice-versa. The usefulness of the Argument from Design just keeps shrinking.

(157)
M Mos,
February 21, 2011 7:23 AM

chance and design

You write about Hoyle ___ "That is not what Hoyle said. Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on earth by chance is comparable to the probability of a hurricane assembling a 747 by chance. However, the probability of a 747 being assembled by design and the probability of life originating on earth by design is extremely high." ___ You are treating "chance" and "design" as a dichotomy. But evolution is NEITHER chance nor design. Just because it is unlikely to arise by chance doesn't mean it must be design. And just because design is a POSSIBLE explanation doesn't automatically make it a LIKELY explanation. Like any historical science or detective work, we have to do the investigation and look for the evidence. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that naturalistic processes of selection can give rise to functionally complex objects. You seem to be willing to grant that life evolved from a single cell to things like humans. As far as I'm concerned, the human brain is staggeringly more complex than a single neuron. If something like that could evolve, then it is reasonable to suggest the first cell evolved. I'm not impressed by your attempt to draw a dividing line at the first cell.

(156)
M Mos,
February 21, 2011 7:11 AM

Hume

You write about Hume. "I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person could seriously consider Hume's argument as having any relevance to the matter at hand. We are not discussing the "causes of the universe" or the "origin of worlds," i.e., things of which we have no experience." WHAT?!?! Of course we talking about origins, in this case the origin of life. And we have no experience of that. Can anybody say, "Oh yeah I remember the day God made life." You go on. "We are talking about highly complex living organisms that are meticulously studied, catalogued, and experimented on day and night by scientists all over the world." No, we are talking about the ORIGIN of living organisms. Scientists study organisms which have already come into existence. They don't directly study the moment they first appeared. Nor do theists study the day that God made the universe. Nobody was there. Nobody has any direct experience of that. Hume is right. The reason that a suit implies the designer of the suit is that all our direct experience confirms that. In postulating the human designer we are postulating something we already have experience with and can demonstrate is physically present by many means. No living person has direct experience of the moment the universe came into existence.

(155)
M Mos,
February 21, 2011 7:02 AM

errors of logic

M Averick-- I read your piece again. There are errors of logic.
You write "there are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could be accounted for by any undirected process." You are talking about human intuition. Human intuition comes from what humans have experience with. There are theories about origin that we can't _intuitively_ or spontaneously generate because we have no direct experience of them. That doesn't mean they are false. Since when did a "hunch" rise to the level of proof? Is it okay for a detective to testify in court "I have a hunch the guy did it?" You write "Nobody disagrees with the Argument from Design. There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit and that the poem itself proves the existence of the author of that poem. ... the disagreement is not about the validity of the Argument from Design. The argument itself is undeniably true. The point of contention is the following: Does the incontrovertibly true Argument from Design apply to living organisms?" Hang on. The only useful kind of "Argument from Design" would be a universal principle. Saying that we all agree suits came from tailors and poems comes from writers doesn't mean anything if you can't generalize it. The Argument from Design is not "incontrovertibly true" until you've given some evidence it is a general principle. If it's a general principle then it applies to everything including life. If it's not a general principle, then as a theist you should give it up and look elsewhere to demonstrate God's existence.

(154)
Adam,
February 21, 2011 4:35 AM

Correction

In the variation of your argument, generalization #2 is substituted for syllogism #3, not syllogism #4 as I mistakenly wrote.

(153)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 10:55 PM

RNA

M Averick---you have argued that DNA cannot evolve and that it is required for evolution to proceed. The comments here have pointed out this is plain wrong. Viruses evolve (in the wild) and they don't have DNA. Then you say, "But RNA couldn't have evolved either." Whoa, bait and switch. The history of biology is that we keep discovering that every known complex feature of an animal has a simpler form somewhere else. Don't you think it is a bit unsatisfying intellectually to keep retreating your position every time biology makes a new discovery? Given the history of biology, it is quite reasonable to postulate that there was a chain of descent with modification that led to DNA.

(152)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 10:49 PM

50 wins at blackjack

If you win 50 blackjack hands in a row, it is reasonable to conclude you are cheating. Certainly the probability of this happening by chance is astronomically small. However, if I don't know any additional facts, I can't make any definite assertion about the way in which you are cheating. I don't know whether you have cards up your sleeve, whether you are colluding with the dealer, or anything else. With _no experience_ of the mechanism by which you cheated, I can't say anything about it. I don't think the first cell appeared by chance. Absolutely not. But we have no experience of it, so we cannot say that this mechanism or that mechanism is unreasonable. We do have a great deal of evidence that naturalistic processes (unguided) can give rise to functionally complex objects. We have many ideas about how that can happen. So it's not unreasonable to hold to that belief about the first cell. If you say that's a kind of faith, I agree! Atheists sometimes define "faith" as "belief without needing evidence." This misses an important aspect of the idea. Faith can mean trusting your hunches, acting on them. Dawkins is confident the evidence indicates there is no God, and furthermore he _acts_ on that confidence. He takes the leap from "yeah, this is probably true" to "I'm going to act on this belief, I'm going to structure my life around it and look for fulfillment based on it." This is an aspect of faith, which of course theists share. You don't just think there's evidence for God---you act on that conviction, and seek happiness and satisfaction based on it. I just think there is plenty of evidence for naturalistic evolution of functionally complex objects so it is reasonable to "have faith" in that. Furthermore I think the arguments against naturalistic mechanisms are logically flawed.

(151)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 10:37 PM

proof beyond reasonable doubt

M Averick-- yes, I appreciate making the epistemology clearer. I want to correct myself--- I agree you don't have to prove anything is 100% certain. Sometimes these arguments are called "proofs of God's existence" which can be misleading. But I disagree that it is unreasonable to postulate a natural mechanism for the initial appearance of the first DNA-based cell. Let me demonstrate the flaw in the Argument from Design. Let's phrase it like this: "If A came from X, and B is very much like A, then B came from something very much like X." This is easily disproved. For instance, let's say that you encounter a big pile of sand on a beach. Furthermore you see children on the beach making other piles of sand. It is reasonable to conclude that children made the pile of sand in front of you. The next day you go back to the beach and see a pile of rocks. This SHARES FEATURES (a critical concept) with the pile of sand. Because of its similarity to the piles of sand, you conclude children made it. But unknown to you, on this beach the pattern of tide currents deposited the rocks. So your conclusion is wrong.Now, you might say that the argument from design is about functionally complex objects, not simple piles. That is irrelevant. The key concept is whether A and B SHARE FEATURES. You have argued ceaselessly that hearts share features with mechanical pumps. Okay, but that doesn't mean they both come from a similar place. And Hume's point is spot-on. We don't have direct experience of the arising of the first DNA-based cell. We weren't there. So we are on shaky ground indeed if we try to argue it must have arisen in the same way as computers and machines etc.

(150)
Adam,
February 20, 2011 8:58 PM

Reply to Shoshana

As I've explained over and over again, nobody created the aliens. The aliens are temporally infinite. The aliens reside in another dimension where our laws of physics do not apply and it is possible to be temporally infinite and spatially finite. I know that you are emotionally resistant to the truth that aliens created life, but you cannot arrive at truth based on emotion. It is impossible. We all agree we need to be REASONABLE.

(149)
Adam,
February 20, 2011 8:44 PM

You argument clarified continued

Syllogism #3: Life was either created or arose from a natural, undirected process. Life has a creator (i.e. syllogism #1 is logical). Therefore, life did not arise from a natural, undirected process. (“AS I explained in the article, THERE MUST BE A BEGINNING OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER. A supernatural creator is one of the two possible 'beginnings… There is another possible "beginning". A naturalistic process that starts with non-life and ends with life… all the evidence is AGAINST such a possible beginning. What is the evidence against it? I keep pointing out over and over again; The starting assumption that we all accept is that functional complexity implies a designer.”)
Syllogism #4: Life began through a natural, undirected process or a supernatural Creator. The beginning of life was not a natural, undirected process. Therefore, life began through a supernatural Creator. (“Since an undirected process [cannot] produce life from non-life, we simply accept the obvious answer: A Creator, who happens to be supernatural.”)
You are also simultaneously arguing a variation of the above argument in which generalization #2 is substituted for syllogism #4. Generalization #2: There is no evidence that the beginning of life was a natural process; therefore, the beginning of life was not a natural process. (“A naturalistic process that starts with non-life and ends with life. There exists no evidence that such a thing is possible.”)
Do you agree with this translation? If not, what changes would you make?

(148)
Anonymous,
February 20, 2011 8:42 PM

Your argument clarified

I’ve translated your argument from comment #87 into the structure of formal logic. Generalizations and syllogisms are separately numbered. Your original words are quoted in parentheses after each step.
Generalization #1: Some things that are functionally complex have a creator; therefore, all things that are functionally complex have a creator. (“In every aspect of our lives we accept that a certain level of functional complexity implies that it is intelligently designed. This is true whether it is a smiley face in the sand, an article of clothing, or a bicycle.”)
Syllogism #1: All things that are functionally complex have a creator. Life is functionally complex. Therefore, life has a creator. (”A living bacterium is on the level of functional complexity of the most sophisticated pieces of machinery we know of. Therefore, the prima facie assumption is that it is the result of intelligent design”)
Syllogism #2: Syllogism #1 (i.e. life has a creator) is logical (i.e. non-regressive) only if there is a supernatural Creator. There is a supernatural Creator. Therefore, syllogism #1 (i.e. life has a creator) is logical. (“Once we have inescapably concluded that it is the result of a Creator, because of the PHILOSOPHICAL problem of infinitely regressing creators, we conclude that the only possible creator must be outside of nature, ie outside of time and space.”)
javascript:submitCommentForm()

(147)
Shoshana E.,
February 20, 2011 7:55 PM

To Adam

I am well aware that "emotional reasoning" is an oxymoron- I used that term intentionally, specifically because of how ridiculous it is. You cannot arrive at truth based on emotion. It is impossible. We all agree we need to be REASONABLE. As others have asked you (as have I)- who created the aliens? As long as these aliens are finite, they cannot be infinite. The two are inherently opposites. Simple physics- the ball is rolling-what started the ball rolling? It had to go from being still to being in motion.

(146)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 6:02 PM

bad design in nature

Regarding the Argument from Design-- to those folks who argue against it by pointing out the things in nature that seem like bad design, or destructive--- if we want to be precise in our reasoning, this doesn't work. If even one thing in nature requires a god-like designer, then the Argument from Design is valid. That's one reason there is so much wasted back-and-forth between M. Averick and others here. M. Averick is pointing out examples that he argues prove the existence of a designer. If you counter this by giving other examples that don't seem designed, you haven't answered his point. Of course, the existence of bad design and destructive viruses in nature is an argument against the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. To me it argues against a loving God with a definite plan. But that's not about the Argument from Design.

(145)
Moshe Averick,
February 20, 2011 4:44 PM

REPLY TO MMOS (140)

MMOS: Your point is well taken. A truly rational step by step approach to any subject, and certainly the existence of God, must include a discussion of epistemology: i.e. How do we define knowledge? What does it mean when we say we 'know" something to be true? How much evidence do we need to actually assert something is true? Your exact question is dealt with at length in my book. Chapter Two of my book (available on Amazon and Kindle) has a detailed discussion of this issue that you raise. In fact, I do not ever have to prove that a natural origin of life is impossible. I just have to show evidence of a Creator beyond a reasonable doubt. If I win 50 hands of black jack in a row in Las Vegas, they will throw me out and never let me back in. The obvious assumption is that I am counting cards or I have some other trick up my sleeve. The one thing that nobody believes is that it was pure luck. So I ask you MMOS, is it IMPOSSIBLE that it was blind luck that I won 50 hands in a row? Of course it's not impossible, but it is not reasonable, and you nor anyone else would believe it. It is not impossible that life came about through a naturalistic process, it is simply that such a proposition is eminently UNREASONABLE. Since you asked such an important question, I urge you to purchase the book and read it from the beginning. I think you will see that what I am saying is true. All the best. Look forward to hearing more.

(144)
Moshe Averick,
February 20, 2011 4:32 PM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM (142)

BOB, Even Richard Dawkins disagrees with you. In The Blind Watchmqker , pg. 5, Dawkins tells us that before 1859 he could not imagine being an atheist. Why? For the simple reason that the astounding "organized complexity of organic life" (his own words) required an explanation. Before Darwin, the only plausible explanation was a Creator. Hitchens, in God is not Great, admits the same thing.
The mistake that Dawkins makes is that he asserts that Darwinian Evolution solves the problem of the incredible "design" that is found in living organisms.
Although Dawkins admits that Darwinian Evolution is "counterintuitive", as it turns out there is an explanation other than Intelligent Design for the organized complexity of life. It is important for you to realize that he does not avoid the question by saying that our intuition about design is invalid. Our intuition about design is completely accurate. It just turns out there is an incredibly counterintuitive solution,
In fact Dawkins is wrong. Darwinian Evolution does not explain the "organized complexity of life". Darwinian Evoltuion does not even begin to address the issue. Darwinian Evolution cannot take place without a DNA bases self replicating organism in place. How did that fantastic piece of molecular machiner get there? The original question still remains and the only plausible answer still remains, just as Dawkins himself admitted; A Creator. You are mistaken when you think that there is any plausible evidence for the existence of a RNA-world that led up to life. All RNA-world experiments depend on extremely sophisticated laboratory work called pre-biotic synthesis. Nobody, including Jack Szostak, Leslie Orgel, or Gerald Joyce claim they know how RNA could have assembled under natural conditions. Look at the Harvard University Origins of Life Initiative website and you will see that they openly admit that origin of life is a complete mystery.

(143)
Bob Applebaum,
February 20, 2011 2:28 PM

People Don't Realize When They Repeat Same Errors

The fact that Paul Davies uses metaphors to elaborate his awe at the sophistication of life is not evidence of anything. You are using that inappropriately as part of the fallacy of incredulity...ie, life is so amazing therefore Goddidit. That is a logical fallacy I've already pointed out. It is also God-of-the-gaps....just because science hasn't answered something yet, doesn't mean insert "Goddidit" , take free pass from producing evidence.
You can't just say if I look at something that appears designed, therefore it's designed. Are mountains designed? What criteria did you use? Is dandruff designed? What criteria did you use? Are cancers designed? What criteria did you use? You can arbitrarily lie to yourself, but please refrain from lying to the rest of us.
I say "intelligence is evolved" because you cannot have an INTELLIGENT designer who precedes the evolution of intelligence. That goes directly against reality. Intelligence is an evolved conscious state which requires neurons and sensory input. An invisible being does not have those things. Try to find evidence of ANYTHING which has intelligence which DOES NOT have CELLS. Good luck.
Of course there is evolution without the first DNA bacterium. There are RNA viruses TODAY that evolve!! Early life almost certainly first employed proto-RNA, which evolved to RNA, which evolved to DNA. Funny how those complex molecules are made up of simpler ones, they are not unique units. A bacteria did not magically poof into existence, though your imagined friend seems to have a great liking for them.

(142)
,
February 20, 2011 7:47 AM

REPLY TO BOB APPLEBAUM (127)

"We all understand that life and the universe look designed. That's a childish intuition- which I don't mean insultingly..."
Perhaps you should help out Dr. Paul Davies (an athestic physicist) whose "childish intuition" led him to write the following:
Scientists have fabricated invisible cogwheels, motors the size of a pinhead, and electrical switches as tiny as individual molecules…the burgeoning field of nanotechnology – building structures and devices measured on a scale of billionths of a meter promises to revolutionize our lives…but …nature got there first. The world is already full of nanomachines: they are called living cells. Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come straight from an engineer’s manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line. The miracle of life is not that it is made of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are integrated in a highly organized way…with a fine tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering…how do all these mindless atoms know what to do?...somehow, collectively, these unthinking atoms get it together and perform the dance of life with exquisite precision.
I am not manipulating anybody. You seem to have a hard time seeing the obvious.
1. If things look designed, I assume they are designed unless there is some compelling reason to believer otherwise
2. "Intelligence is evolved" - What does this have to do with our discussion? There is no evolution without the first DNA based bacterium already in existence. The question is: How did it get there? Science has no answer. this is not God of the gaps. This is the undeniably true Argument from Design. Richard Dawkins himself said that before 1859 he could not imagine being an atheist. Why? Because of the incredible design in nature. TO BE CONTINUED

(141)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 7:35 AM

possible, impossible, likely, unlikely

M Averick---
You need to be more precise about arguing whether a given proposition is definitely true, possibly true, unlikely, or impossible. To prove the existence of God via the design of cellular life, you have to show it is IMPOSSIBLE it could arise naturally. To counteract that proof, the atheist does NOT have to show it is absolutely certain that life originated in a non-supernatural way, and does NOT have to prove the mechanism. The atheist merely argues that it is possible. Once it is possible it can no longer be used as a proof for God's existence. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist---but it means that the theist needs to look elsewhere for a proof.
Let me give an example. Let's say you find footprints on the floor of your kitchen and say---"This proves a burglar was here." Then the detective interviews you and finds out you have relatives with the key to the house and who have plausible reasons to enter the house while you are away. Well, then the footprints no longer PROVE the existence of the burglar because it is POSSIBLE a relative was there. You could object, explaining it is unlikely your relative visited. Okay, so you are arguing it is UNLIKELY. But that is not proof. Your proof is shot down as soon as an alternate explanation is possible.
You grant Darwinian evolution is possible. At one time in history it seemed impossible and inconceivable, but we know better now. The history of knowledge is that things that seemed impossible at one time are now possible. If something as complex as the internal structure of humans could evolve, then it is certainly possible that single cells could evolve. And evolution does not require DNA.
Dawkins finds a natural origin of life to be plausible. You probably find it completely implausible. Okay, but let's make it clear you are not dealing with proof at that point. You are describing your instinct.

(140)
Moshe Averick,
February 20, 2011 7:34 AM

REPLY TO CHRIS READE (119)

Chris,
my line of reasoning implies the following: The idea that something as functionally complex as a bacterium could be the result of an undirected process is as absurd as the notion that a smiley face in the sand with the words "Good Morning Chris Reade" written in the sand next to is the result of an undirected process. My prediction is that Scientists will never discover a plausible, empirically demonstrable undirected process that could achieve such a result. So far I am correct. The burden of proof is on you and those scientists who believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for life. My question to you is: How long are you prepared to wait for Science to find an answer? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Most scientists simply accept the naturalistic approach as an article of faith.
They are true believers. Nothing will shake this faith,and they will keep looking until they find an answer, even if it takes forever. I disagree with you about the experiments that are taking place. Almost all of them are based on prebiotic synthesis, which consists of highly rigorous and sophisticated laboratory procedures to obtain certain specific organic compounds, particularly nucleotides, (which never form naturally) and then under the most specific and controlled conditions they get their "results." Most of these experiments have nothing at all resembling what would have happened naturally in a prebiotic soup. Perhaps you could tell me which specific experiments you are talking about. All the best,

(139)
M Mos,
February 20, 2011 3:04 AM

maker vs designer

to M Averick--
I think you are not being clear enough in distinguishing between MAKER and DESIGNER.
An analogy. If we came across a watch lying in a field, we can infer with high probability it was made by a human. We can trace its origin to a factory and observe a human, "Bob", making similar watches. At this point we are quite sure Bob MADE the watch. However that doesn't tell us if Bob DESIGNED the watch. Maybe someone else designed it and told him how to make it.
So who or what makes humans and bacteria? Humans grow from an egg and bacteria divide. That is how new humans and bacteria come about. Now, are you suggesting that God intervenes in the growth of a human? Are you suggesting that God has to be there controlling chemical reactions and shaping the form bit by bit? It seems to me that you are pretty clear in saying that DNA guides the growth of cells. So I doubt you claim that the growth of a new human, or the division of a bacteria, is a supernatural process. They are natural processes, obeying the laws of physics and biology at every step, right?
The question of how the DNA was DESIGNED is a separate question. We know how it is MADE. It is made by a natural process in which DNA duplicates itself.
We have experience of DNA MAKING itself. That is quite within our experience. Just in the same way we can observe Bob making a suit. But that doesn't tell us how the suit was designed. And we have no experience of DNA being designed.
Darwinian natural selection DOES NOT REQUIRE DNA. Viruses evolve just fine and they don't have DNA. Natural selection requires DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION but there is more than one way to provide that. Therefore DNA could have evolved from a simpler system. DNA and cells are no more evidence for intellectual design than the structure of large organisms, which you already concede is not evidence of design.

(138)
Sneeral,
February 19, 2011 11:53 PM

Mystery solved

The latest installment of the excellent PBS show NOVA: Scoence Now is all about "Where do we come from?" And it answers the question of how the world made the leap from chemestry to biology. Very interesting and it shows your primitive argument to be the superstitious artifact that it is.

(137)
BRUCE,
February 19, 2011 8:03 AM

CONTINUED ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

Dear Rabbi,
Your response again repeats a major flaw that persists in all your writing on this subject. You continue to compare the development of biological processes with the creation of man-made items, such as poetry, a smiley face, language, and a suit. These items clearly require a creator, since they are admittedly creations of mankind. You are comparing apples to oranges. The development of biological processes are not man-made, and therefore cannot in any way be compared to the man-made items you repeatedly present. In fact, the comparison is quite silly. Yes, a suit and a poem and a smiley face need a creator. That is irrelevant with regard to a cell. Your contention is that because a poem cannot develop by chance, it therefore follows that a cell cannot, either. That is a false and illogical conclusion. In addition, you refer to a cell's genetic material as "digitally encoded software." But it is not software. You are cleverly trying to skew the perception of genetics towards something that requires design, like a computer. But it is not a computer. A cell's mechanism, and the origin of life itself, is probably the result of millions of years of gradually increasing complexity, forged by natural selection and natural attractive forces in nature. Viruses exist in a transition state between inanimate matter and living cells, consisting primarily of small strips of genetic material surrounded by a simple protein coat. Viruses are not truly alive, but represent a transition between living and non-living. One can see plainly that life developed gradually from the simplest forms. Although the exact detail is not at hand, it certainly makes a lot more sense than an all-powerful creator. Even a cursory examination of these things CERTAINLY blows away the Adam and Eve fairy tale. BTW, your pessimistic prediction that science will never find the answers flies in the face of history. Many men in history have said such things. They have always been wrong.

(136)
Greg,
February 19, 2011 12:22 AM

Seriously?

The two main fallacies you employ are the argument from ignorance and homunculus fallacy. I pointed out your most blatant use of the argument from ignorance ("There is no evidence at all that ELIMINATES a supernatural creator... [therefore] a rational person has to consider it as a possiblity..." ) and you responded by reiterating the homunculus fallacy. My conclusion is that you don't know what the argument from ignorance is. There are two forms of the argument from ignorance. #1 - If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. #2 - If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false. Let's look at how your quote matches up with the first form, shall we? If a proposition has not been disproven ("there is no evidence that ELIMINATES a supernatural creator), then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true ("a rational person has to consider it as a possibility..."). You use the second form of the argument from ignorance to "prove" that life did not arise "naturally". If a proposition has not been proven (i.e. life arose naturally), then it cannot be considered true and must be considered false (i.e. therefore, life didn't arise naturally). For God's sake (pun intended), this isn't funny anymore.

(135)
Moshe Averick,
February 18, 2011 9:07 PM

REPLY TO ASHLEY E. (121)

ASHLEY, I must disagree with you. Complex things do not make themselves all the time.
Astrobiologist Dr. Harold P. Klein: "The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened."
Teflon and vulcanized rubber were
"accidents" that happened in laboratories with human beings (intelligent agents) around to understand the implications and the intelligence to use them to their advantage. That is not an "accident:".
But your second question remains. The argument from design does not neccessarily imply a God who is intimately involved in our everyday lives. That would require the rest the subjects I discuss in my book (10 other chapters besides the excerpt on Aish.com) and an analysis of Jewish History, All the best,

(134)
Moshe Averick,
February 18, 2011 8:59 PM

REPLY TO JOE (122)

Joe: Just as a rose by any other name is a rose, an electric pump by any other name is an electric pump. The heart is an electric pump, no amount of twisting and turning can escape that fact. The bacterium operates on a "pure digital code" (Richard Dawkins)
We have experience of digital code. It is most defintiely not out of the realm of our experience. There was no possibility of understanding what is going on in a bacterium until we undersood computer information processing, nanotechnology etc. There is not scientist in the world, (including Richard Dawkins) who uses Humes argument to deny the problem. Origin of Life researchers who are intimitely aware of the awesome nanotechnology (Jack SZostak said the the contraptions in a cell would make any nanotechnologist jealous) of the simplest bacterium, know that David Hume's philosophy just does not cut it anymore. They do not say that we don't have to worry about this issue because of Hume, they keep telling us there is a scientific answer. Hume is outdated.(I've avoided the academic question as to whether or not the argument was valid on its own merits.) All the best

(133)
Adam,
February 18, 2011 6:27 PM

Please define your terms

“Do you think there is anything unreasonable about the possibility that the very high level of functional complexity of a bacterium implies a designer?” Ok, let’s accept this premise and examine your logic based on this premise. Premise #1: Everything functionally complex is intelligently designed. Premise #2: Bacteria are functionally complex. Conclusion: Therefore bacteria are intelligently designed. I can’t tell if this syllogism is logical because it includes some vague terms. What do you mean by “intelligently designed”? Your examples imply that by “intelligently designed” you mean “created by something of greater complexity”. A calculator is created by a person who is more functionally complex, and consequently more intelligent than the calculator. Is this correct? Or are you defining these terms differently?

(132)
Adam,
February 18, 2011 5:57 PM

Aliens are the reasonable explanation

Dear Rabbbi, as I’ve explained several times, the aliens don’t require a “beginning” because they, and the matter of which they are comprised, has existed in another dimension for eternity. Now, I have a question for you. Does your being composed of neither matter nor energy have hands? If not, then it can’t possibly have “created” life. Remember, all functionally complex material objects, i.e. watch, poem, bicycle, DNA based bacterium, are assembled by an intelligent designer. There either is a creator who assembled the first life forms, ie. aliens from another dimension who have twelve large hands and forty small hands, or life assembled itself from non-life in a naturalistic process. What you have proposed is the same thing that Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th centruy – that life was assembled by a being without hands. Of course, there is no evidence that such a being exists, and even so it does not address the question of how life was assembled. Your idea of a being without shape or form simply doesn’t answer the question - how was life assembled? Also, you meant to say that the old man with a beard is a figment of Shoshana's imagination.

(131)
Hans,
February 18, 2011 5:44 PM

PART 3

So, if we believe the intelligent design argument, this leads to the absurdity to believe that God is a being who uses his power to create life only to watch it being destroyed by other aspects of his creation. The belief in an intelligent designer, if followed to its logical conclusion, leads to a designer who is either grossly incompetent or perverse. On the other hand, nature is blind to right or wrong, so blind processes of evolution perfectly explain the faulty designs and destructive aspects of nature. So, please explain why believers in God have the moral high ground? Because I can't see it.

(130)
Hans,
February 18, 2011 5:41 PM

PART 2

Some animals have genes for non-existent features: Birds do not have teeth. But birds have genes, normally non-functioning, for making teeth. Horses only have one toe, but their DNA has non-functioning genes for multiple toes. The wiring for the optic cells of human and other vertebrates' eyes run on the inside causing a blind spot where the wiring penetrates the eye wall. The octopus and squid however are favored with a perfect eye. Even an imperfect human designer would not do these things. What kind of a perfect designer would design the first living organism to use a process of evolution that leads to all sorts of crazy or faulty designs, certainly not a "watchmaker with 20/20 vision!" You should do more research into the "Argument from bad design," before you talk about 20/20 vision.
You did not understand the relevance of viruses to the discussion. This is because you focus only on the first bacteria and do not look at the wider picture. If one follows your argument from design, one can hardly escape the conclusion that viruses would also have been designed by the same God. Now let us examine if this is consistent with God's desire to create life. Viruses have no beneficial functions to other organisms, furthermore they can not survive without a host organism. They have DNA, but the only thing their DNA instructs them to do, is invade other cells and force these cells to make copies of the virus. In the process, they kill their host cells. Viruses are very efficient, self-replicating killing machines. So, God wilfully and perversely designed something that not only has no beneficial purpose but also is very destructive to life. Therefore God is responsible for all the horrific viral plagues, such as Ebola, Aids, SARS, etc.
TO BE CONT.

(129)
Hans,
February 18, 2011 5:39 PM

Does Intelligent Design predict the observed facts?

You said, "The question I raised in the article is how the very first living cell came into being. I conceded for argumets sake that from that point on, evolution could take place, but that would mean that the first living organism was designed to evolve."
It is reasonable to expect that if "the first living organism was DESIGNED to evolve," we should be able to make certain predictions about how the ensuing evolution exhibits a tendency to come up with life forms that are optimally suited for their life. Is this what biologists find to be the case? No! You believe that the idea that life began without a designer is absurd, but you don't realise that your assumptions about a perfect designer God are even more absurd because they are in contradiction with the observable fact of faulty designs in nature:
You concede that after the first cell came into existence, evolution is plausible but only as an in-built design. But evolutionists know that evolution does not follow a plan, mutations happen completely randomly. As a consequence, evolution is a very messy and inefficient way to achieve the arrival of beings capable of acknowledging God. Evolutionists know that nature is full of faulty or crazy designs, for which Intelligent Design proponents never give satisfactory explanations. Organisms survive with vestigial limbs, so long as these are not too much of a threat to their survival. Wales for example have vestigial hind legs. Many species have the craziest mating processes. [Male bees' reproductive parts explode inside the female. Female hyenas have mock male genitals. The clown fish can change gender. Hermaphrodite snails shoot painful darts at each other. Whiptail lizards have lesbian sex. Male anglerfish are born without any digestive system and have to fuse to a female's body shortly after birth. Female bed bugs have fake genitals to protect against traumatic insemination. Etc. http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/30/30-strangest-animal-mating-habits]. TO BE CONT.

(128)
Bob Applebaum,
February 18, 2011 3:10 PM

Further Elaboration

I do accuse Mr. Averick of employing the same logical fallacies that fortune tellers, astrologists, magicians and faith healers employ. They try to manipulate our teleological psychology.
We all understand that life and the universe look designed. That's a childish intuition- which I don't mean insultingly...children will often say something like the purpose of a tree is to provide a resting place for birds. The Earth also appears to be flat...but we know better.
A tree has no purpose other than to increase entropy and reproduce. The same purpose all of life has, including humans. The Earth is not flat.
Mr. Averick employs several logical fallacies in combination to promote his fantasy:
1. Teleological argument - things look designed.
2. God of the gaps - we don't know exactly how life originated, therefore insert default answer used throughout history whenever we didn't know something-"goddidit".
3. Argument from incredulity - But things looks so complex and amazing to Moshe and he can't explain it.
But he can fabricate an invisible, intelligent designer (he's fine with leaving science here). He ignores that intelligence is an evolved biological trait and requires sensory input, neurons and a genetic framework. But he ignores that everyday reality.
He postulates his invisible friend always existed in order to avoid the infinite regress problem. No evidence one way or another....just post hoc "reasoning' to "cover" for his original fabrication.
We see the universe, it is much more likely the pre-universe has always existed than an invisible agent who we can't see has always existed. And then there's the intelligence problem and the mechanistic problems (how does the invisible, intelligent guy DO ANYTHING????)
It is a sham.
There is no design and certainly not intelligent design.

(127)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 11:17 PM

REPLIES FROM M. AVERICK

TO JON JERMEY (45)
Jon, I'm glad you were paying attention during your sex education classes. However true your statements are about how we all got here, they are beside the point. Human reproduction is guided by a super-sophisticated software program called DNA. Evolution cannot take place until this super-sophisticated DNA is in place. There is no such thing as "primitive DNA" The DNA in the simplest bacterium operates essentially the same way as human DNA. The question I raised in the article is how the very first living cell came into being. I conceded for argumets sake that from that point on, evolution could take place, but that would mean that the first living organism was designed to evolve.
TO SHOSHANA E.: You are very welcome. As far as the issue ot Torah M'sinai why dont you email me privately at RabbiMaverick@hotmail.com

(126)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 11:09 PM

TO CRAIG DUPREE (85)

thank you so much for your kind words. I don't mind when people disagree with me but it's always nice to get some encouraging words. (from a Jewish friend)

(125)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 11:02 PM

REPLY TO ADAM (91)

your syllogism is close. I would make one change; that is "every FUNCTIONALLY complex ' object is designed. Or perhaps as I stated in the article: there are levels of functional complexity beyond which the human mind refuses to accept could be the product of an unguided process.
But you did not answer my question: Do you think there is anything unreasonable about the possibility that the very high level of functional complexity of a bacterium implies a designer?

(124)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 10:53 PM

M. AVERICK REPLY TO JOE (94)

JOE: you asked someone to respond and I'm not sure if you meant me. If it was me you wanted to respond, I have to ask you to clarify your question, I did not quite understand what you are asking.

(123)
Joe,
February 17, 2011 10:22 PM

Hume's Argument Remains

I didn't make it past your supposed refutation of Hume. Hume has a problem with drawing an analogy from things we experience--such as watch makers--to things that we don't--such as world makers. As you note, we can experience an effect, the watch, and posit a cause, the watch maker, in the case of artifacts like watches. The trouble, as you also say, is in making the next step of asserting that the same relationship holds for natural objects, things that aren't man-made. Now this is where you lose the thread of the argument. You say Hume's argument isn't relevant because we have experience of living organisms. Living organisms are effects, in your argument, that must have been caused. Hume doesn't dispute that we experience of the natural objects. He doesn't dispute that there is a world. What he disputes is that we can draw the same conclusion from effect to cause that we can draw with artifacts. The place where you attempt to draw that conclusion is at the end of that section when you say that such complex organisms must have had a creator. THAT is where Hume's argument is relevant. You never address that point.
Secondly, there is an attempt in your description to insinuate a cause/effect relationship between natural objects and a creator just by describing them in terms normally used to describe synthetic objects. But just by calling a kidney a highly complex filter, or the heart a complex pump, does not circumvent Hume's argument, which still stands. As soon as you try to treat natural objects as effects that must have had a creator, Hume would just object that you have no experience of any such relationship with natural objects and no experience of creators, whether you call them world causes or universe generators or complex organism designers, etc. You missed the fundamental point of Hume's argument and so you failed to refute it.

(122)
Ashley E.,
February 17, 2011 10:16 PM

Actually, complicated things create themselves all the time...

Actually,complicated things spontaneously come into being all the time. Teflon and vulcanized rubber are both members of a large group of spontaneous products that happened because of "accidents". Something that in the natural world we call "mutations". This is the natural process of random creation and it takes something to set the process in motion (humans? Gods?) But I think that the argument isn't really whether there's a God, meaning whether there is something out there that caused all of this to exist, but rather whether this "God" is the same "God" described in any of the human-created religious texts. That, to me, is the more interesting and worthwhile debate. We can probably all agree that some process caused us and everything around us to exist. The question is whether this is "God" as defined in our sacred texts or not. I'm thinking not, but I have no more proof than someone who "believes". So here we are in the same place with much more important problems to solve...

(121)
anon,
February 17, 2011 6:44 PM

to Bob Applebaum

The discussion here is about origin of life; how did you determine that life was the "background"?
Thanks

(120)
Chris Reade,
February 17, 2011 6:29 PM

Major flaw in this arguement

Would the author, I wonder, allow for this question - "What would happen to your argument if a scientist were to perform an experiment in which electricity struck a substance similar to that of the proto-earth and started a chain reaction that led to a self-replicating process and eventually to something like a bacterium?" Those experiments are underway currently in several labs around the world. You cling so hard to the idea that God created the first life as proof of his existence. It's a seductive idea but one which science has a good chance to disprove.

(119)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 6:28 PM

REPLY TO BRUCE (98)

Bruce, I fail to understand what relevance the issue of the source of epilepsy has to our discussion. The question we are dealing with is not the fact that people throughout the ages (and today also) have said and beleived all kinds of wild and crazy things.
That is uneniably true.
Our question is the exact same one that was argued about by R. AKiva and a Roman skeptic as recorded in Talmudic literature.
Does a suit need a creator?, does the poem THe Charge of the Light Brigade need a creator? Does a smiley face in the sand with the words "Hello Bruce" next to it need a creator? Does digitally encoded software that exists in a bacterium need a creator?
Maybe Sciece will one day discover how it could have been the result of an unguided process. Maybe Science will one day discover that the smiley face in the sand could also have been the result of an unguided process. In the meantime, however, the very heavy burden of proof is on those who assert that such a thing is possible. I have written the following several times: My theory makes a prediction which is falsifiable: It predicts that just as it is absurd to assume there is a naturalistic process that could result in a smiley face in the sand with the words "Hello Bruce" next to it, and just at it is absurd to posit a naturalistic process that could result in the operating program for a computer, it is absurd to posit that a bacterium could be the result of a naturalistic unguided process. The prediction is that Science will NEVER discover such a process.
In making such a prediction I could not have made my position more vulnerable. I have put it all on the line. The ball is now in your court. Prove that such a thing is possible.

(118)
,
February 17, 2011 6:11 PM

M. AVERICK REPLY TO M MOS

DEAR M MOS: Human beings do not self assemble. The assembly of a human being is guided by a digitally encoded software program that is "far, far more advance than any software we've designed" (Bill Gates), namely DNA. As atheistic science writer Dr. Paul Davies has put it: "In a living organsim we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to an incredible degree...the problem of the origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware. How did it happen? How did nature go digital?" It's hard for me to understand why Origin of Life scientists will not even CONSIDER the obvious answer.

(117)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 6:04 PM

M. AVERICK REPLY TO MIKE AND ADAM

Dear Mike and Adam,
Are the immortal aliens made out of physical matter? If so they can't possibly be the "beginning' that is ultimately necessary for the creation of life. REmember, the principle is that all functionally complex material objects, i.e. watch, poem, bicycle, DNA based bacterium, must have an intelligent creator. The philosophical question then arises; Who created the creator? there cannot be an infinite regression of creators. There either is a creator before whom there was nothing else, ie.,a supernatural creator who does not exist in time or space, or life from non-life in a naturalistic process. What you have proposed is the same thing that Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel proposed in 1973- That life was sent here from another planet by an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. Of course, as all the other researchers pointed out, there is no evidence of life on other planets, and even so it does not address the question of how life started in the first place. Your idea of aliens simply doesnt answer the question. How did the FIRST life begin?
The Creator I described is definitely not an old man with a beard, that seems to be a figment of YOUR imagination. The creator I described is composed of neither matter nor energy and does not exist in time or space. I don't know where you came up with the man with the beard idea. Again, the alien answer does not address the questions that must be answered.

(116)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 5:35 PM

REPLY TO SF

Dear SF,
"I disbelieve it, solely on the basis that I am not God"
I don't understand what you mean here. The Argument from Design simply states that there are levels of design, sophistication, and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could have been the result of an undirected process. Examples: A pair of Levis jeans, a sonnet by Shakespeare, a smiley face in the sand with the words "Good Morning SF" next to it, an incredibly sophisticated fully digital code that can bring about the self-replication of a nanotool filled molecular machine.
Why do you have to be God to acknowledge this?
If you can accept that the message in the sand is created, why can't you accept that the digital code in a bacterium is created? The machinery that is needed to store, retrieve and translate the digitally encoded DNA is exponentially more functionally complex than even our own computer software. Why is this so problematic for you?

(115)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 5:25 PM

CONTINUATION OF REPLY FROM M. AVERICK

There is another entire chapter in the book that addreses the issue of self-replicating molecules.
It is important to realize what we are talking about conceptually when we discuss the notion of a self replicating molecule. We have built machines that perform replication, for example a Xerox machine. It replicates whats written on a piiece of paper to another piece of paper. That is not self replication. Self replication is the Xerox machine assembling another Xerox machine from raw materials. In other words, I throw raw materials in a room with a Xerox machine and I come back in a half hour and find two Xerox machines. THAT is self replication. This is what a bacterium does every half hour. Self replication is an engineering feat that we can only dream of. No human technology has been able to build a self replicating machine. There is no such thing as a "simple" self replicating molecule. Suffice it to cite the following comments by experts in the field (agnostics or atheists)
DR. Robert Shapiro: "The tightly controlled processes in a chemistry lab cn't be mistaken for what would have happened on the early earth. Any abiotically prepared replicator before the start of life is a fantasy."
Dr. Graham Cairns-Smith commenting on the rigorous laboratory procedures necessary to assemble RNA strands that have even a remote resemblance to self replication: "It becomes absurd to imagine that such a process could have happened by chance on the ancient earth."
Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francois Jacob: "It goes without saying that the emergence of this RNA (self-replicator) and the transition to a DNA world implies an impressive number of steps, each more improbable than the previous one."
In the meantime the extremely heavy burden of proof is on the one who asserts that life or self-replicating molecules can self assemble from inorganic matter.

(114)
Moshe Averick,
February 17, 2011 5:07 PM

Replies to Comments from M. Averick

TO BOB APPLEBAUM:
Bob, could you please elaborate on what you wrote about the background being designed or not designed, I do not understand what you mean.
My point, of course, is that the nanotool filled bacterium with it's "uncannily computer like" (Dawkins' words) genetic code is as obvously designed and created just like any other machine.
Look forward to your clarification.
TO HANS: I don't quite understand the import of your question about viruses, but despite my limited understanding of viruses, I would assume that it also must be designed. Are you aware of viruses that spontaneiously self assemble from inorganic material?
TO DOUG B.:
Doug, I think you missed the point. Darwinian evolution does not explain complexity. Darwinian Evolution is the RESULT of the complexity of the first living bacterium and its astoundingly complex digitally encoded DNA. One of the major thrusts of the entire excerpt posted on Aish.com is that Darwinian Evolution is a smokescreen that hides the simple reality that Science has not addressed the issue of the complexity of organic life at all. In other words, if I came across a computer that was directing the assembly of other computers, it would be foolish to say, AHA, I've discovered the secret of how computers are assembled. They don't need an intelligent designer, they simply get assembled by other computers. Obviously the point is, who built the computer that is assembling other computers. Darwinian Evolution can only operate once a staggeringly sophisticated molecular machine is already in place. Who built the machine?
As far as self-replicating molecules; the postulation of the existence of "simple" self-replicating moleculesis a purely speculative hypothesis that was formulated because Origin of Life researchers understand that it is preposterous to propose that a fully functioning bacterium (the simplest known life form, that is not simple in any way at all), popped out of a prebiotic soup. TO BE CONTINUED.

(113)
Bob Applebaum,
February 17, 2011 3:08 PM

Intelligence Is Evolved

Intelligence is evolved...you can't make up an intelligent designer (and get by with no evidence), when ALL THE EVIDENCE shows that what we call intelligence is an evolved state.
You can't make up a supernatural creator and say that it is not made up of matter and energy. That's just a story one has made up. How does such a thing have intelligence if it has no nervous system and no brain?
Why the need to invent something so contrary to everything we know about reality?

(112)
,
February 17, 2011 1:50 PM

Whether you are a believer or not, it seems to me the rabbi makes an important point: namely, that Darwin didn't kill God. You cannot scuttle the notion of an intelligent designer by appealing to evolutionary theory, because that theory does not touch on the origins of life. Thank you, rabbi, for this article.

(111)
SF,
February 17, 2011 11:11 AM

Argument from Design - There is no such thing as proof.

It's frustrating to hear anyone state that something can be proven when discussing God, the Universe, or anything of the Big Topics. Who can prove anything but God? Why even state that the Argument from Design is agreed by all and incontrovertible. I disbelieve it, solely on the basis that I am not God and accept that my perspective of existence, reality, and even tangible item are only constructs of my brain and senses working in tandem... maybe with a little mystically born insight interlaced if I'm lucky.

(110)
Bob Applebaum,
February 17, 2011 3:40 AM

This Is Ridiculous

The Argument From Design is childish. We realize a watch or an airplane is designed by comparing those things to the background (mountains, rivers, etc.) which is undesigned.
You can't say the background is both designed and undesigned at the same time.
It's time to be intellectually honest.

(109)
Hans,
February 16, 2011 9:51 PM

I have just a simple question for you. Viruses are much smaller and less complicated than bacteria. However they have their own DNA and they have shapes that are quite efficient and mathematically pleasing. If you believe that God designed the DNA in the first bacteria, do you also believe that God designed the DNA in the first virus?

(108)
Doug B,
February 16, 2011 9:32 PM

foovius@hotmail.com

Interesting article, though I find the argument pushing back the problem from "creator of humans" to "creator of first self-replicating molecule" to be a curious one. The history of science is one of seeking, and finding, rational explanations for what could not previously be explained. Before Darwin, the complexity of living organisms could not be explained. Now, that complexity can be explained. Why should we believe that scientific progress is complete? Why should we believe that tomorrow's scientific knowledge will be unable to explain the origin of self-replicating molecules? Seems to me that continually reducing God to an ever shrinking corner of the Creation playing field is not a good argument for the Creator!

(107)
MABSH"Y,
February 16, 2011 6:58 PM

Re: Michael #103

". Atheists disbelieve in God because there is no evidence for such a being,.... From the point of view of education, the God-of-the-gaps argument... inhibits inquiry and the advance of knowledge. Someday we will probably figure out how self-replicating molecules and higher structures arose. And the mechanism(s) will no doubt not involve anything supernatural. "
By already assuming the outcome ("will no doubt not involve...."), you are already going against the tenets of science. One must hypothesize, design an experiment that can potentially disprove the hypothesis, and see if indeed it does disprove the hypothesis. How can you be SURE the results are what you assert? That is not keeping the open mind of a scientist. And this is the shortocming of science. By its very nature of the first axiom (one can determine truth by observation), it denies the possibility of a God, therefore any experimental result that can't be explained without recourse to the supernatural must be further refined until the supernatural can be explained away. Therefore it's begging the question, and cannot find any other "Truth" than that it already assumes. If, arguendo, the truth lies elsewhere, science will therefore be searching endlessly, since it's not in its domain.

(106)
Mike,
February 16, 2011 2:50 PM

Adam the Truth-Seeker

Why are you all afraid to address atheist Adam's notion of the immortal aliens from another dimension? Didn't you read the part where he says he seeks the truth at all costs?

(105)
Adam,
February 16, 2011 1:27 PM

Reply to Shoshana

This discussion is not about the Kuzari or Euthyphro's dilemma. It is about the origin of life. Aliens are the most reasonable explanation, because our experience teaches that functionally complex machinery is created by intelligent design. Your hypothesis of an old bearded man on a cloud is less reasonable than aliens, but more reasonable than a being without shape or form. Also, "emotional reasoning" is an oxymoron.

(104)
Michael,
February 16, 2011 6:15 AM

Tedious

The article by the distinguished rabbi is the God-of-the-gaps fallacy run amok. Atheists disbelieve in God because there is no evidence for such a being, particularly the being advocated by the Abrahamic faiths. From the point of view of education, the God-of-the-gaps argument, in its sundry manifestations, inhibits inquiry and the advance of knowledge. Someday we will probably figure out how self-replicating molecules and higher structures arose. And the mechanism(s) will no doubt not involve anything supernatural.

(103)
M Mos,
February 16, 2011 5:52 AM

maker vs designer

I think you need to clarify the Argument from Design. You say that we all accept that the existence of a functionally complex object implies a designer... I would say it is more accurate to say we accept it implies a MAKER. A watch has a maker, and so does a human being. Each has a process by which it comes into existence. The maker of the watch is not necessarily the same entity that designed it. When we are clear about that, we see there is a curious thing about how humans come into existence---they self-assemble. This is not true of watches. This is the critical distinction that opens the door to a non-designed ancestor.
Note that our normal expectation that any object as complex as humans must have a maker is completely fulfilled. Humans don't appear randomly out of tornadoes. They assemble themselves. In this sense, our common sense is absolutely correct---they have a maker.

(102)
M Mos,
February 16, 2011 5:40 AM

Asking the right question

God doesn't make people---the evidence indicates that people grow inside their mother through a self-assembling process directed by DNA. It is then obvious that we need to ask where their mother came from, and we can infer there is a chain of descent. Each "thing" (person) in this chain is apparently-designed, but if we go far enough back in the chain, do we arrive at something that does not appear to be designed? I would say it's plausible.
There is an interesting parallel to the regression of designers. If life requires a designer, does not that designer require a designer? As you point out, correctly I think, that there is no reason this must be so. Or perhaps God was designed by Super-God, but Super-God didn't need a designer. Given a chain of designers, it is plausible to suggest that the chain starts with a designer who didn't need to be designed.
But do you see the parallel with the descent of animals? The existence of "apparently-designed" animals does not imply it's impossible to find an ancestor who was apparently-not-designed.
It seems to me that you are not reasoning strictly in this article, but underneath it you are sympathetic to the notion of a not-designed designer, but unsympathetic to a not-designed animal ancestor.
For instance, you are eager to prove that the DNA system implies a designer. But simpler forms of replication exist currently: RNA. What if DNA evolved from some simpler form which later died out because the DNA system was more successful? Completely plausible. I don't think you have any basis to say that DNA is "un-evolvable." You're just more sympathetic to that.

(101)
Larry Smith,
February 16, 2011 5:37 AM

Life from non life

Stuart Kaufman, in his book "At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity", shows that autocatalytic sets of molecules can spontaneously form something that resembles life. ....... I see no reason why you can't start with some primitive form of life along these ideas, and have it evolve over millions of hears into something as complex as a bacterium. .... This doesn't make me an atheist. Faith in God should not be based on the premise that we see mysteries of Nature that science can't explain . Because that faith is weakened or destroyed entirely when we eventually are able to explain those mysteries. This is why I stopped supporting Aish, as I mentioned back in comment #8.

(100)
Chuck,
February 16, 2011 4:39 AM

So flawed....

We are "chance" and your statement "Only a willful designer could produce a digitally controlled self-replicating molecular machine like a bacterium" is inherently flawed. It is not a willful designer but a random act of environment. As we learn more about the universe, its age and depth the reality is that we ARE a 1 in a billion chance. For some reason it is human nature to want to assign a "who" to it -- but there is none.

(99)
Bruce,
February 16, 2011 12:38 AM

DIVINE ORIGINS?

Dear Rabbi,
It seems that the foundation of your argument in favor of a supernatural creator is that "life is so complex (for example, the mechanism of a cell) that it must have been created." Again I say to you that complexity is a relative concept. A cell's complexity is amazing to us only because our current level of technology and knowledge does not allow us to understand it fully. Centuries from now, mankind's knowledge of science will hopefully be far advanced from where we are now. At that time, the workings of a cell might not seem all that complex. It's very possible that some time in the future we WILL understand the mechanism of a cell, the genetics of life, and the way it develops. Your conclusion that it MUST have been created based on our lack of understanding or ability to explain it in today's world is illogical and shortsighted. Just the way men in the distant past ascribed a divine etiology to epilepsy, solar eclipses, and other natural phenomena that they couldn't understand, you are making a similar error in judgment. The history of science is littered with countless men who made ludicrous claims of divine origins to most of the things that we understand perfectly now. Why don't you claim that God or a demon is the cause of epilepsy? It's because with time science found the answer. You need to rethink your entire perspective. It's primitive and illogical.

(98)
Shoshana E.,
February 15, 2011 11:59 PM

Thank You to Rabbi Averick

I just wanted to thank Rabbi Averick for taking the time to reply to these comments. I also wanted to know if you have any articles on the Revelation at Mt. Sinai because that pretty much finishes this debate. You can't argue against 3 MILLION eyewitness accounts. I know Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen has audio classes on this topic, but an article on Aish would be more accessible.

(97)
Shoshana E.,
February 15, 2011 11:31 PM

Adam-Differentiate between intellectual and emotional reasoning

Adam- Let's say for a moment that the aliens created you. Your favorite food of all time is mushroom pizza. Now the aliens broadcast a message to our dimension, and loud and clear prohibit anyone from eating mushroom pizza. Anyone who eats it gets the torture chamber. You listen, am I right? Bottom line-they are BOSS. (Bosses?) With your theory you are not avoiding having to submit to a Higher Power. Fortunately, the Higher Power did reveal Itself (once again, this infinite being outside of space and time inherently does not have a form or gender), and It did not prohibit eating mushroom pizza. The "revelations" that Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jr. ETC. had from "G-d" have all been private affairs- unable to be proven. The ONLY time a public revelation has been recorded was when the Infinite Force spoke to THREE MILLION PEOPLE at Mt.Sinai- "I am the Lord your G-d" "You shall not worship anything else" etc. It did not prohibit mushroom pizza, but It DID prohibit Murder, Stealing, etc. And just like you listen to the aliens, because bottom line, they're in charge- you listen to the word of G-d. We have to get this silly, childish picture out of our heads of some old guy with a long white beard sitting on a cloud throwing lightning bolts at people. This is simply INCORRECT.

(96)
ari,
February 15, 2011 11:15 PM

moshe, i got the point

I was not arguing that Evolution and Origin of Life are the same concepts; I was positing that both take an inordinate amount of "design" capabilities, from a human perspective. Evolution may move along by certain natural processes (natural selection), but there is a tremendous amount going on beneath that surface - ie, compare the "design" of an elephant to a tree. If nature can handle that on its own, why could it not handle the first microbe? Does it really make that much of a philosophical difference whether there was something prior or not? Think of it this way: you cannot comprehend how a wind gust could assemble a 747. Could you comprehend how a wind gust could turn a 747 into a laptop? Ergo, they are on the same footing in terms of design complexity and needing a DESIGNER.

(95)
Joe,
February 15, 2011 9:25 PM

Lightning comment

Comment #65 said:
before we discovered the origins of lightning, we attributed it to God. Then we all looked like a bunch of superstitious primitives
#47:
scientists had difficulty proving that lightning comes from charged electrons in the ionosphere, did we say then that because we don't understand lightning, there must be a Creator? Next year, or the year after that, evolutionists will come up with a model that will explain the systems we currently have.
How do you respond to these comments?
Thanks
Can you respond to this

(94)
Adam,
February 15, 2011 9:18 PM

Reply to Ken Solomon

It isn't regressive, because the aliens have always existed. Are you afraid of considering the possiblity of aliens from another dimension? Believe what you want, but I seek the truth at all costs.

(93)
Michael,
February 15, 2011 8:54 PM

Russian Roulette

One thing is for sure, there are only two possible scenarios after death, there is no Creator OR there is a Creator. On the side that there isn’t a Creator, both the atheist and the believer share the same fate. However, taking the possibility that there is a Creator, then the atheist is doomed whereas the believer in a Creator gets to reap his blissful reward. So doesn’t it make sense to play your ‘bets’ evenly and not risk everything, at worst you’ll have led a meaningful and spiritual life?

1) There is no rationality to Adam's comments that G-d couldn't be the intelligent designed, but space aliens are.
2) The space alien theory only defers the question, who created these advanced space aliens?
Pushing off the origin question from one life form to another, doesn't answer the question. It is just another regressive series.

(90)
Moshe Averick,
February 15, 2011 4:53 PM

Reply to ADAM

ADAM, we seem to be missing each other. I have found in cases like this it can be very productive to keep the discussion very simple until we figure out where the actual bone of contention is. Perhaps ,let start like this: Do you think there is anything unreasonable about looking at the digitally encoded self replicating system of a bacterium and immediately concluding that one of the eminently reasonable possibilities for the origin of this molecular machine is an intelligent creator? (let's completely leave aside for the time being the idea of a supernatural creator)
I would appreciate it if you would keep the answer as simple as possible. Again, I'm trying to help our discussion by pinpointing EXACTLY where our thinking processes diverge. Once that is clarified we can either use that insight to focus our dialogue and come to some common understanding, or we could decide that the fundamental disagreement is so profound that there is really no point to discussing it any further.
Looking forward to hearing from you.

(89)
Adam,
February 15, 2011 2:41 PM

Let's be REASONABLE

I agree. Only REASONABLE possibilities should be considered. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that life was created by an entity composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space. But that is a silly, ridiculous UNREASONABLE possibility. Immortal, infinitely intelligent aliens from another dimension is a REASONABLE explanation, because our experience teaches that functionally complex machinery is created by intelligent design.

(88)
Moshe Averick,
February 15, 2011 1:33 PM

REPLY TO ADAM

ADAM, you are mistaken when you call my argument "circular reasoning."
The syllogism is as follows: A. In every aspect of our lives we accept that a certain level of functional complexity implies that it is intelligently designed. This is true whether it is a smiley face in the sand, an article of clothing, or a bicycle.
B. A living bacterium is on the level of functional complexity of the most sophisticated pieces of machinery we know of. Therefore, the prima facie assumption is that it is the result of intelligent design
C. Once we have inescapably concluded that it is the result of a Creator, because of the PHILOSOPHICAL problem of infinitely regressing creators, we conclude that the only possible creator must be outside of nature, ie outside of time and space. AS I explained in the article, THERE MUST BE A BEGINNING OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER. A supernatural creator is one of the two possible 'beginnings". In other words, if a supernatural creator exists it would solve our dillema.
that is why I said that unless you have some evidence to eliminate that possibility it must be considered.
D. There is another possible "beginning". A naturalistic process that starts with non-life and ends with life. There exists no evidence that such a thing is possible. In fact all the evidence is AGAINST such a possible beginning. What is the evidence against it? I keep pointing out over and over again; The starting assumption that we all accept is that functional complexity implies a designer. The burden of proof is on the one who asserts that functional complexity can exist WITHOUT an intelliegent designer. I do not have to "prove" that a digitally coded self replicating system is designed anymore than I have to "prove" that my suit was manufactured. That is the obvious truth.
E. Since you are unable to present any evidence that an undirected process can produce life from non-life, we simply accept the obvious answer: A Creator, who happens to be supernatural.

(87)
Moshe Averick,
February 15, 2011 1:16 PM

REPLY TO GREG AND ARI

Our entire lives are conducted by the simple principle that a FUNCTIONALLY complex system is the result of intelligent design. Therefore, To look at a bacterium which is a functionally complex machine of the highest order and conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer is not an argument from ignorance. It is eminently rational and reasonable. this is why two of the most brilliant atheistic scientists of the 20th century, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel proposed the Directed Panspermia theory for the Origin of Life. This theory proposed that an ADVANCED extra-terrestrial civilization consciously and deliberately seeded our planet with life. Why would they come up with such a theory? The obvious answer is because they could think of no naturalistic process that could produce something as "miraculously complex" (Crick's term) as a living cell, so they figured it came from Intelligent Designers in outer space. You have an irrational resistance to the idea of a Creator. Why is that?
ARI: You completely missed the point of my argument. Darwinian Evolution cannot take place until a fully functioning DNA based bacterium is in place. How did it get there? Despite the foolish protests of many of my critics that it is "an argument from ignorance", the obvious conclusion, as I've pointed out over and over again, is that it is designed. This means that even if we accept the fact of Darwinian evolution, it is the result of a created and designed DNA based system.
Please review what I wrote in the article. - Evolution and Origin of Life are two completely separate concepts. Darwinian Evolution can only take place after there is an Origin of Life. Please note Professor Thomas Nagel's take on this from a secular perspective. He is cited in the above article.

(86)
Craig Dupree,
February 15, 2011 8:38 AM

The arguments employed in this expose are as old as Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas. They proceed with crystal clear, mathematically precise, relentless, and compelling logic. Truth is truth and transcends the centuries. Thank you, Rabbi, for breathing new life into this line of reasoning and explaining it within the context of living in the 21st century.
A Catholic Friend

(85)
Moshe Averick,
February 15, 2011 5:17 AM

CONTINUATION OF REPLY TO ADAM

Adam, another example of a POSSIBLE argument vs. a REASONABLE argument: If you go into a Las Vegas casino and win 50 hands of black jack in a row, they will pick you up and throw you out the door and ban you from ever coming in again. Why not plead with the owner and say , "I know it seems miraculous that I could have won 50 hands in a row by luck, but it is POSSIBLE!! Do you actually think someone is going to pay attention to such a ridiculous argument? In fact the great scientist Dr. Francis Crick actually proposed such a foolish and ridiculous argument about the Origin of Life. (From his book "LIFE ITSELF" , pg.88)
"An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisified to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that...it COULD NOT have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions." In other words, the beginning of life is so unlikely as to be in the category of a MIRACLE, but it is POSSIBLE there is a naturalistic explanation. Dr. Harold P. Klein, Astrobiologist, NASA: "The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of the chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened." Why not take that statement at face value? Adam, why not, at least, consider the possibility that the above statement by Dr. Klein is a reflection of the truth? Are you afraid of considering the possiblity of a Creator?
It is a bitter pill to swallow that even brilliant scientists, in this area, are driven by a scientific-faith agenda, rather than a desire to seek the truth at all costs.

(84)
Moshe Averick,
February 15, 2011 4:57 AM

Reply to HANS AND ADAM

TO HANS: Hans, I forgot to address your question about falsifiability. In fact my theory makes a very clear prediction that is easily falsifiable. The prediction is as follows: Just as you will never find a naturalistic process that produces a suit, poem, or cellphone, you will NEVER find a naturalistic process that produces a living bacterium. To falsify the theory all one needs to do is find a PLAUSIBLE, EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST LIVING BACTERIUM.
TO ADAM: Adam, you objected to my statement that there are only two possibilities to explaining the Origin of Life. What I meant to say is that there are only two REASONABLE possibilities for the origin of life. In a criminal trial what is required is proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. The reason why this is so is because no matter what evidence is presented there is always room for UNREASONABLE doubt. Two men go into a sealed bank vault, a shot rings out and one man is dead of a gunshot, the other holds a smoking gun. The defense attorney proposes that someone could have beamed down from the Starship Enterprise, shot the man, and then beamed up. He says to the jury: Isn't it POSSIBLE?! We don't care at all if its POSSIBLE, we only care if it's REASONABLE.
All you have done is present an endless list of silly, ridiculous UNREASONABLE possibilities. The only two REASONABLE possibilities are a Creator, because our experience teaches that functionally complex machinery is created by intelligent design, or a naturalistic process that started with non-life and ended with life. In Chapter two of my book, in which I delineate the conceptual and philosophical paradigms for discussing the existence of God, has a lengthy section about the common fallacy of arguing what is POSSIBLE VS. WHAT IS REASONABLE. When you step into an elevator it is POSSIBLE the cable will
snap, but it is not REASONABLE so you step in anyways. TO BE CONTINUED

(83)
Shoshana E.,
February 14, 2011 10:41 PM

Reply to "Adam"

Yes. There are only two possibilities. A being can only be FINITE or INFINITE. To suggest that perhaps there is a third option that we have yet to discover is an even bigger leap of faith than working with what we have. There cannot be TWO infinites! Where did the aliens and the slot machine come from? Each of the aliens are infinite? The slot machine that "exists out of space and time"- so why is it "giant", and "a slot machine''? The higher power we are speaking of is INFINITE- meaning it does not have shape or take up space!

(82)
Adam,
February 14, 2011 10:37 PM

Circular reasoning

The argument that the complexity of life implies intelligent design is only non-regressive if there exists a supernatural Creator, and your evidence for a supernatural Creator is the complexity of life. Neither this circular argument, nor a lack of evidence for an alternative explanation for the origin of life, is evidence for a supernatural Creator.

(81)
Greg,
February 14, 2011 9:09 PM

Good grief

"There is no evidence at all that ELIMINATES a supernatural creator. This, of course does not immediately imply that it is the correct solution, all it means is that a rational person has to consider it as a possiblity until proven otherwise. "
Wrong. This is an argument from ignorance. This is not how logic works and definitely not how Science works.
Btw, when submitting a comment one may elect not to display their name. I imagine these comments are then displayed as authored by "Anonymous". So, it might not be one person named Anonymous who "keeps harping over and over again" about the argument from ignorance. Occam's razor suggests a simpler explanation.

(80)
ari,
February 14, 2011 7:54 PM

defining terms part 2

One more critical point: all the passionate discussion about how complex the Origin of Life is ultimately relative, and thus faulty as a basis for the 2-possibility theorem. Although a "nanotool filled piece of molecular machinery" may seem astoundingly complex to us mere humans, in the grand scope of nature and universal forces, it may be pittance. Further comparing it to man-made objects as suits and 747's is more futile -- who's to say mankind's creating abilities are the litmus test for life as we know it? A better barometer is to look at nature itself: if it can "create" the astounding variety of organic matter on earth through evolution, why could it not "create" the very first cell? The anthropocentric views postulated here should accept both the actual origin of life, and its continuing evolution, on the same philosophical grounds.

(79)
Moshe Averick,
February 14, 2011 7:11 PM

REPLY TO HANS

HANS, Although you seem to disagree with me, or at least are healthily skeptical, I happen to agree with your basic approach. I have researched this topic for 2 1/2 years and it is absolutely clear to me that Origin of Life scientists pursue a scientific faith agenda without even realizing it. What you have read on Aish.com is a small excerpt from my book. this subject is discussed in three long chapters that make up nearly one third of the text of the whole book , plus extensive endnotes. I ask no one to take my word for anything. Anything I have asserted I have extensively documented and referenced. I am a great believer that each individual must take full responsibility to make these decisions on their own.
The statistics I quoted are from prominent Origin of Life researchers, Dr. Robert Shapiro, Dr. Graham Cairns Smith,and Dr. Francis Crick. You seem to be approaching this issue thoughtfully and dispassionately. I urge you to read the book and please get in touch with me via my website at
RabbiMaverick.com Good luck

(78)
Moshe Averick,
February 14, 2011 7:02 PM

CONTINUATION of replies to my critics

When you are faced with a problem that has only two possible solutions the task in front of you becomes rather simplified. All you have to do is see if there is evidence that points to one of them, or you see if there is evidence that eliminates one of them.
IMPORTANT: I want to point out to my critics and I ask you to pay close attention: There is no evidence at all that ELIMINATES a supernatural creator. This, of course does not immediately imply that it is the correct solution, all it means is that a rational person has to consider it as a possiblity until proven otherwise.
In our courtroom, when this issue comes to trial , the presentation of evidence is easy. Evidence for Creator is strkingly obvious: A nanotool filled piece of molecular machinery that operates with a super sophisticated digitally encoded (we did not even know what digital code was before several decades ago) self replicating system that human engineers can only dream of reproducing. This level of functional complexity obviously implies a designer or creator.
The attorney for option (2) i.e. life from non-life, stands up to present his case.The judge asks him: Please present to the court, evidence that life came from non-life in a naturalistic process. The attorney quotes world renowned chemist DR. George Whitesides: "I have no idea...On the basis of all chemistry I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable." He quotes atheist Nobel Prize winner Dr. Frances Crick: "An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us no, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..." The great Dr. STanley Miller himself: "It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began." etc. etc etc. If my critics want to maintain their FAITH that science will find an answer, your faith is protected by the Constituion, but that does not magically make it science. In the meantime the burden of proof is on you.

(77)
Moshe Averick,
February 14, 2011 6:34 PM

Replies TO my critics

Most of the critics above aeem to have again not quite understood my argument or have missed the point.
There is no escaping the fact that there are levels of design, sophistication and functional complexity that the human mind simply refuses to accept could have come about through an undirected process.
This is not an argument from ignorance as ANONYMOUS keeps harping about over and over again. This is a simple self-evident truth that we accept in every single aspect of our lives. A living bacterium is a molecular MACHINE that shows functional complexity beyond anything that human technology can manufacture. For what possible reason would anyone assume that it is NOT created?
Unless of course, the idea of a creator of life emotionally or psychologically disturbs you. AT the very least, why wouldn't you consider it as a distinct possibility?
Why did Richard Dawkins state that before 1859 he could not imagine being an atheist? For the simple reason that the staggering functional complexity of life needs an explanation and the obvious explanation is a creator. Of course Dawkins feels that Darwin solved the problem. One of the major points of my book and the excerpt that appears on Aish.com is that Dariwinian Evolution has nothing to do with Origin of Life and therefore we are left with the exact same problem. How did the first bacterium come into existence? It is not only religious people who realize the import of this question. That is the reason why I cited Professor Thomas NageL. He poses the exact same question from a completely secular perspective.
None of my critics address the simple point that there are only two possible explanations for life. 1. A supernatural creator. The reason why this creator must be supernatural is because of the philosophical problem of an infintiely regressing series of creators. A supernatural creator outside of time and space does not need to be created. OR 2. A naturalistic process of life from non-life. TO BE CONT

(76)
Adam,
February 14, 2011 4:19 PM

Only two possibilities?

"All agree that the process which resulted in the formation of the first living organism required a beginning. There are two possible beginnings, A) a supernatural creator who is composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space, or B) a naturalistic process that started with non-life and ended with life."
How do you know that the earth wasn't populated with life by aliens form another dimension who are infinitely intelligent and powerful?
Alternatively, how do you know that life didn't begin when a giant slot machinge outside of time and space, composed of neither matter nor energy, created life? When the machine generates "777" a new species is created.

(75)
Jim,
February 14, 2011 3:06 PM

Observation in support of your article

While reading, it occurred to me that, not only could a tornado NOT assemble a 747 by chance, but that no combination of natural events, over however long a timeframe you wish to postulate, in whatever sequence you wish to propose, could ever assemble a 747, especially if it were to have to happen incrementally. The odds would dictate that, even if one sequence was successful, the next would be infinelty more likely to result in a mistep than a second successful increment.
BTW, this whole argument is getting caught up in "logic traps". For example, "All machines are man-made.." Perhaps it reads better like this: "All machines are designed. Human organs are machines. Human organs are designed." That allows for the possibility that other animals can build rudimentary tools for use as "machines" Try it.

(74)
ari,
February 14, 2011 2:07 PM

let's define the terms

The real question here is to define the supernatural, which itself is a stand-in for God. Humans have always used the the term as a placeholder for phenomena we don't understand. Sometimes, with increasing scientific evidence, the placeholder is removed and the terminology evolves. Tidal waves were once caused by Neptune, now by undersea fissures. It's simply semantics at the core. Further, what gives humans the right to know everything about the complex natural universe anyway? It takes a certain level of hubris to conclude that our brains, no matter how complex, can grasp the entirety of life. It may be our nature to quest for answers, and comforting to compromise, but again the labels are different. Religious people call the unknown supernatural (which in itself is a revealing, humble term); non-believers understand that the lack of understanding does not indicate anything larger than a basic human shortcoming. Both can be different routes to similar awe-inspiring spirituality.

(73)
Polytheism,
February 14, 2011 1:34 AM

Just one creator?

"All agree that the process which resulted in the formation of the first living organism required a beginning. There are two possible beginnings, A) a supernatural creator who is composed of neither matter nor energy, and does not exist in time and space, or B) a naturalistic process that started with non-life and ended with life."
Why is the dichotomy restricted to a naturalistic process vs one supernatural Creator? Why not multiple creators?

(72)
Eric,
February 14, 2011 1:27 AM

Awful

Your thoughts on Darwinian evolution are about as relevant as mine are toward interpretive dance. You do not understand it, even at an elementary level, meaning you are in no position to argue hard science and fact.
Lastly, I'm surprised at the logical fallacies you apply when attempting to discredit the 747 argument. Inserting "business calculator" in for "creator" is simply a bad analogy. It doesn't show that the argument fails; rather, it shows that a complex creator is an entirely different entity than your manufactured example.

(71)
Anonymous,
February 14, 2011 1:20 AM

Have you heard of the argument from ignorance fallacy?

"what baffles Origin of Life researchers is how "natural" incremental changes could possibly have generated something as staggeringly complex as a living cell."
Have you heard of the argument from ignorance fallacy? You must have. Do you think that an argument can contain this fallacy and still be considered rational? Or do you think that your argument does not contain this fallacy?
You seem to be arguing that that the inability of scientists to explain the origins of life (ignorance) is a rational argument for a Creator. Is this not an argument from ignorance?

Quote: "There is nobody in his right mind who does not understand that the existence of the suit itself proves the existence of the tailor who made the suit."
Yes, but that is because tailors can be proven to exist, and their suit-making can be observed and documented. Even if we could not prove the existence of tailors, we know that humans need clothes to keep warm, strongly suggesting that humans create their own clothes.
The analogy that God is to humans as tailors are to suits fails for a few reasons. First, God does not "wear" humans. Unlike suits, humans do not solely exist to be worn. Our functions are not so narrow as to suggest we were expressly created for a certain function.
Second, we assume any given suit is made by a tailor, because we can observe that tailors exist. God-sightings, in contrast, fade rapidly from societies as they become more civilized and better able to verify or disprove claims of miracles -- casting doubt on whether the miracles ever happened to begin with, and whether the ancient foundations on which religion rests were merely mass delusions.
Third, and most fundamentally, both humans and suits are made of physical matter. If some ultra-powerful force really did devise humans, as humans devise suits, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect it was an omniscient, metaphysical presence who is particularly concerned with his chosen followers -- let alone whether they eat arbitrarily "impure" foods, wear distinctive clothes, learn to read in obsolete languages, or rest on an arbitrarily-chosen day of a week that is only seven days because ancient Europeans liked the number seven. You point to Stanley Kubrick as though to say, "Even a smart person like him believes a design implies a designer," but nowhere did Kubrick suggest that the designer must be an omnipotent, metaphysical entity.
Finally, by deflecting the creation of humanity to God, you've merely devised an even harder question: how could such a God be created?

(68)
Paully,
February 13, 2011 11:26 PM

goddidit is not an explanation

All
Just because you cannot explain something (or at this moment, science can't explain it) doesn't mean defaulting to goddidit is an explanation
It, is exactly zero explanation
That life didn't exist & now it does is agreed. Getting a magical skyfairy (who you don't explain where he came from, btw) actually raises the question of who created the creator
To suggest we are designed is laughable - do you wear glasses? Do you not have blind spots in your designed eyes? Does the exit point for your sinuses point up? Does a koala's pouch point down?
Some designer
The commencement of life on this planet is not YET answered by science, it may or may not be ever - the odds od it happening may be small, but it on,y had to happen once & then darwinian evolution explains the rest.
Saying god did it is saying, please scientists don't try to explain anything we don't understand (great for curing diseases there)
It's a lazy cop out.
To suggest we are the pinical of god's creation is the greatest ego trip of all time considering we are on an insignificant planet in a tiny section of the universe (god is obviously terribly wasteful - we could have existed in a single solar system or evan as a single planet around a single star)

(67)
Ben,
February 13, 2011 11:06 PM

What principle prevents Hashem from using evolution?

The idea that man was spontaneously created is pretty remarkable. All the more so, the notion that Hashem designed a seemingly random physical process by which man came in to being should make one even more in awe of his power. Yet, many seem absolutely certain that this was NOT the way Hashem designed the world. I wish that someone will explain to me how it is we know with such certainty which mechanisms Hashem did not use when creating life. So what if we are the physical result of proven evolutionary process? Since when is Hashem incapable of using evolution and natural selection from creating humanity? Even Dawkins admits that the appearance first replicating proteins was an astronomically improbable event. If Hashem wanted to make a whole fleet of 747s using a gentle breeze, recycled aluminum cans and a pile of matchsticks, he could do so with ease. Isn’t it well established that Hashem happens to be the president and CEO of the highly improbable event department?

(66)
,
February 13, 2011 9:57 PM

How spectacularly unimpressive

Yes, and before we discovered the origins of lightning, we attributed it to God. Then we all looked like a bunch of superstitious primitives. That you so easily attribute the origin of life to a supernatural source is suprising, given the near-constant fighting withdrawal that religion has had to conduct since science developed any semblance of momentum.
To dismiss the regression of creators with what amounts to "God's different" is completely unconvincing. That you then attribute it to "logic" is even more absurd and ironic. The humility of which you speak is completely absent from your own views. Contrary to your claim, scientists express the ultimate humility (and honesty) in saying "I don't know how life originated". In contrast, you claim to just "know" that it was done by God by virtue of a bacterium's complexity and the present absence of a natural explanation. Your argument is the same fallacious "irreducible complexity" argument as that paraded about by any other creationist, you just shore it up with the fact that we don't (yet) have an explanation for the origin of life. Were it to be discovered that it was possible for the basic compounds of life to combine naturally to create the first basic life form, I have no doubt that you'll then retreat to "but who created phosphorous, the atom, et al?" The survival of your religion (and argument) relies on digging trenches in areas of scientific ignorance until you're forced to retreat to the next spot. With each retreat, you look increasingly ridiculous and deluded.
Of those that temper their I-don't-knows with "but I believe it was a natural phenomenon", at least they have umpteen thousands of examples where natural explanations have been found for phenomena attributed to the supernatural (mental illness, disease, etc.) as ammunition. They can argue from statistics, if nothing else. I'm still waiting on a single SUBSTANTIATED example of a supernatural phenomenon.

(65)
Moshe Averick,
February 13, 2011 5:17 PM

Moshe Averick replies to Anonymous

TO ANONYMOUS: You do not seem to have grasped the notion that Darwinian Evolution and Origin of Life are, conceptually, TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Darwinian evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with the Origin of the first bacterium and its digitally encoded DNA. Darwinian evolution and natural selection cannot take place until a fully functioning DNA based bacterium exists. Perhaps Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE will convince you: "Although som people confuse the origin of life with evolution the two are conceptually separate. ..Life had to precede Evolution!...we know much more about evolution than the origin of life. (from her book EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM: AN INTRODUCTION, pg. 27) , or perhaps you will believe Dr. Frank Sonleitner when he writes on the NCSE website the following: "The origin of life and evolution are two separate notions. The fact that there is much to learn about how the first living creatures originated has little to do with the truth or falsity of evolution. Thus an intelligent designer could have made the first forms and then they evolved." I am very aware that both DR's Scott and Sonleitner do not believe in a creator. They are both atheists. However, neither has a clue how life began and they both understand that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the topic or Origin of Life.
You say I do not understand the concept of "incremental change". I understand it very well. It is best stated by DR. G.C. Smith of the U. of Glasgow (an atheist), "The singular feature is in the gap between the simplest conceivable version of organisms as we know them and the components that the Earth might reasonable have been able to generate. This gap can be seen clearly now. IT IS ENORMOUS..." [emphasis mine] What you do not seem to understand, ANONYMOUS, is that what baffles Origin of Life researchers is how "natural" incremental changes could possibly have generated something as staggeringly complex as a living cell.

(64)
Moshe Averick,
February 13, 2011 4:56 PM

Moshe Averick replies to PAUL again

Paul,
You seem to have overlooked the following simple fact:
Everyone agrees that at one point in time there was no life, and that at a later point in time there was life. There are only two possibilities, only two options, the answer to the Origin of Life is one or the other. There either exists a supernatural creator who created life (i.e. a supernatural creator outside of time and space is the only possible answer to the "who created the creator" dilemma) or there is a naturalistic process that can be explained through the known laws of physics and chemistry or pure blind luck (or a combination of the two). I repeat:THERE ARE NOT OTHER OPTIONS. The rational approach is to look for evidence that supports one or the other. The evidence for a creator is obvious: Just as the existence of the suit is the proof of the existence of the creator of the suit, just as the existence of the cellphone is the proof ot the existence of the creator of the cellphone (i.e. suits and cellphones do not make themselves) so too the existence of the bacterium, a nanotool filled molecular machine that operates on a highly sophisticated digitally coded information system, is the proof of its creator. Let's examine the evidence for the other option, namely, that life started from non-life through a naturalistic process: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH AN EVENT IS POSSIBLE. The rational seeker chooses the option where there is clear evidence. I do not assert the existence of a creator because it is an "idea in my head" and since I cannot explain something it must be true. A creator is dimply the glaringly obvious answer. When you see a higly sophisticated digitally coded machiine, why would you assume anything else other than a Creator, unless you have evidence to the contrary?

(63)
Moshe Averick,
February 13, 2011 4:02 PM

Moshe Averick replies to PAUL

TO PAUL - YOUR NEXT POSITION: My answer to you is very simple. If Scientists find a PLAUSIBLE, EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE, naturalisitic explanation for the Origin of Life, then I will have to admit that I made a big mistake and I will have to withdraw from the discussion and re-think and re-evaluate my position. Frankly, I'm very confident about my position, because it is more likely that you will find a naturalistic explanation for a smiley face made out of pebbles with the words "Hello Paul" next to it, also made out of pebbles, and you will never find a naturalistic explanation for the smiley face. I have stated explicitly, I make an easily falsifiable prediction: Scientist will NEVER find a plausible, empirically demonstrable naturalistic explanantion for the origin of life.
What you have completely overlooked, Paul, is that the burden of proof is now on you. The ball is quite squarely in your court. The fact that you have no naturalistic explanation is a problem for the atheistic and agnostic, not me. What will YOU do, if no explanation is found. How long will you be a TRUE BELIEVER in Science, How long will your scientific leap of faith keep you going? When will you be prepared to admit that the notion of a creator is at least a very reasonable possibility?

(62)
Paul,
February 13, 2011 10:41 AM

"Nobody, including Professor Dawkins, has any idea "how life came into being!"" "
And neither does Moshe Averick. He works on th logic:
"I have an idea, and because you cannot explain something, my idea must be right", without giving any supporting evidence.
Science works more diligently than that: science has abundant evidence that life started spontaneously, and Dawkins admit honestly that we don't know exactly. But that is no reason to throw away all the evidence we do have.

(61)
Anonymous,
February 12, 2011 10:47 PM

Fallacies galore

Where is the evidence for a Creator?
Your argument:
Everything complex has designer.
Life is complex.
Life has a designer.
This is the homunculus fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument). God is complex, so who designed God?
Your argument: Life either arose from a natural or supernatural process. Since there is no evidence for a natural process, then it must have been a supernatural process.
This is the argument from ignorance fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). A lack of evidence for a natural process does not constitute evidence for a supernatural process. It is only rational to entertain a supernatural explanation if there is supporting evidence. So where is the evidence for a supernatural Creator?
Your argument: Everything complex has a designer...
Now we're back to the beginning of your circular argument.

(60)
Bruce,
February 12, 2011 10:20 PM

Illogical Conclusions

The other issue that you did not address and seem to have missed entirely is that the complexity of a cell is relative. By that I mean that it's complex only relative to our current level of understanding of science. A thousand years from now, the workings of a cell may no longer seem all that complex because our level of science will be so far above where it is now. So your analysis misses a very key element. Just the way men 1000 years ago looked at a solar eclipse or a person with epilepsy and saw a divine event, you are making a similar error in judgment. There are questions about life and the universe that are not explainable by us at our current level of knowledge. That doesn't mean that the answer lies in the supernatural world or with God. It simply means that we don't understand it YET. The fact that scientists in today's world are unable to explain the origin of life means only that they do not yet have the knowledge to explain it, just the way scientists 1000 years ago couldn't explain a solar eclipse. That, of course, doesn't mean that eventually we won't have that knowledge. Where will your argument be then?

(59)
Bruce,
February 12, 2011 10:19 PM

Illogical Conclusions

Dear Rabbi,
Your answer to my comments (#16 "Illogical Conclusions") misses the point. You disagreed with my statement that there is "no logical connection between origin of life and the making of a mechanical device" and that "there are forces in nature which influence the interaction of atoms and molecules, such as electromagnetism, internuclear forces and gravity, which do not influence the development of a mechanical device" by stating that "this is simply not true." You miss the point. It's not that there aren't the same forces acting on all matter, but that the production of a mechanical device is primarily under the influence of the people making it, rather than the natural forces that exist in nature, whereas the development of life occurs without the intervention of a maker, thereby allowing the forces of nature to have their full expression. Thus, the development of life did not necessarily take place by chance, but in the context of certain natural influences that change the odds. This is a critical point that is very often ignored by people who talk of the extreme improbability of life - or a 747, or a watch or an eye - developing "by chance." The development of a 747 or a watch or a poem by Shakespeare by chance would be virtually impossible. But the development of life was not by pure chance but influenced by thermodynamic and attractive forces in nature that increased the odds.

(58)
Anonymous,
February 12, 2011 9:38 PM

You're very wrong

You're simply very wrong. You misunderstand completely the theory that you're claiming to debunk by not getting the key principles of natural selection. You've contrived everything you've heard so hard to fit within the paradigms of your belief structure and it's not only intellectually dishonest but remarkably stupid. You clearly don't understand the process of natural selection or incremental change or you would realise your mention of the 747 is completely fallacious and I really find myself wondering whether you're deliberately and maliciously misleading people about science or whether you're so ingrained in your belief that someone who appears semi-intelligent could be so horrible misguided on a concept most school children can understand if explained properly

(57)
Hans,
February 12, 2011 10:22 AM

I would like to point out that you claim to show how it is Scientifically more logical to believe in God. However, if you want to enter the debate on the terms of Science, you should follow the premises of scientific practice such as falsifiability. Also, you use emotive language that represents scientists as dishonest. I think history has shown that dishonesty and honesty is found on both sides of the debate. I used to be a believer, but I have come to realize that believers often misapply quotes of scientists, or quote them curtailed so that the context of the quote is lost and the intended meaning changes. So, it is often important to check out the sources of the quotes and whether the info is up to date.
About the saying: "There is zero evidence that a self-replicating DNA molecule could have formed spontaneously on earth, the odds calculated by experts of such an event occuring are roughly 1 in 10 to the 1000th power." Which experts, were they statisticians as well as experts on genetics or biochemistry? Keep in mind that scientists are not always experts in a field they make a remark on. Not all scientists are statisticians! Someone once said, "There's lies, ****** lies, and then there is statistics." Mistakes are sometimes made by treating parallel processes as consecutive steps. This would of course completely misrepresent the likelihood of an event. It also needs to be taken in consideration that organic compounds from space have been found on meteorites. This should be taken into account as an influence on the prerequisites for the formation of organic molecules.

(56)
Anonymous,
February 12, 2011 5:44 AM

Incredible ignorance

1. The cornerstone of your 'argument' is inherently flawed.
Cloth is not living => not subject to evolution. NO ONE contests that inanimate objects which are shaped into functional tools have been constructed by a designer.
BUT biological organisms are NOT inanimate - they are very much subject to evolution.
2. At this point, you will bring up the abiogenesis straw man - knowing full well that Evolution, and Abiogenesis are two very different things.
In short, your extended argument from ignorance is a very dull and uninformed read.

(55)
Hans,
February 12, 2011 1:55 AM

I noticed that you dismissed Szostak's work on the basis that there is no hard evidence that his conclusions are correct and that there was no scientist present to direct the process. But science does not deal in certainties, scientists propose a hypothesis and then they check whether it can be falsified. In the statement: "The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life MAY BE FOREVER LOST TO SCIENCE," I see nothing but a humble admission of an obvious fact. It seems rather obvious to me that the fossil record would preserve more fossils of life that is abundant, than of life that is scarce. In this light, I do not find it logical to expect to be so lucky as to find snapshots of pre-life processes, if it is life itself that by reproduction can lead to the abundance that may be needed for it to show up in the fossil record.
However, science often needs to use clues about things that have not actually been seen or maybe are not possible to be seen directly. (Does religion not use the same method?) The difference between Science and religion is that religion at this point introduces a further factor in the debate that was not needed before and lies outside any know laws of physics. Why does that not need 100% proof, like you seem to expect from scientists? What happened to falsifiability, what happened to approaching the subject with scientific methods? Science, however, although it was difficult to imagine a possible natural explanation, still carried on thinking about this problem to see if such a natural explanation is possible.
Szostak claims his experiment shows it is at least possible in theory. Why not check out his explanations for yourself?
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/index.html

(54)
Hans,
February 12, 2011 1:53 AM

About Jack W. Szostak

Sometimes scientists make the same fallacies of analogy as believers, so that the quote may be accurate, but wrong in substance. I believe this is happening with the Boeing 747 quote. I would appreciate to see a scientific statement (with quote provided) that the laws of physics have the same Effects at the macro scale as at the micro scale. Note that I stress Effects. Nobody contests that the laws of physics work on both scales. But it seems so obvious to me that atomic, chemical and molecular forces of attraction and reaction have a very strong effect at the micro scale to combine and create new substances placed in a solvent, but a very negligible effect at the macro scale of a Boeing and its parts. Therefore I would regard this argument for design as seriously flawed.
When you mentioned Jack W. Szostak, you did not spend much time on his ideas. However, when I read his ideas on abiogenesis, I found he gave a very good explanation and it seems that he is exactly the scientist that should be given a hearing, since what he says is so relevant to your position. It is important to give your readers the opportunity to form their own independent judgement of his work. Please note from his website the following credentials relative to this discussion:
Jack W. Szostak
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor, Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School
Alex. A. Rich Distinguished Investigator, Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital

(53)
Moshe Averick,
February 11, 2011 6:33 PM

Reply to FALSE PREMISE - THE GAPS ARE SHRINKING

TO FALSE PREMISE - " The gaps are shrinking" - You are terribly misinformed about the state of Origin of Life research. The so called "gaps" you are talking about are not shrinking at all. Since the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950's when scientists so arrogantly asserted that a naturalistic explanation for the Origin of Life was around the corner, scientists have come to realize that what exists is not a "gap" - but a complete blank, wide open spaces , there is nothing from sea to shining sea. DR. KLAUS DOSE: "Experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussion on principal theories in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." DR GEORGE WHITESIDES (who has the highest Hirsch-index rating of any living chemist): " Most chemists believe ["BELIEVE"? how scientific!] as I do , that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea...On the basis of all chemistry that I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable."
DR ROBERT SHAPIRO (Prof. Emeritus of Chemistry , NYU) : "The weakest point is our understanding of the origin of life. No evidence remains that we know of to expain the steps that started life here, billions of years ago."
DR. KEN NEALSON (microbiologist and co-chairman of the committe on Evolution and Origin of Life for the Nationa Academ of Sciences) - "NOBODY UNDERSTANDs THE ORGIN OF LIFE, IF THEY SAY THEY DO THEY ARE PROBABLY TRYING TO FOOL YOU."
False Premise: Are you trying to fool us? Perhaps you should contact Dr's Whitesides, Shapiro, Nealson. Szostak , etc. and fill them in on the crucial information that only you seem to know about regarding the origin of life. I'm sure they would be grateful. You can correspond with me if you like thru my website.

(52)
Moshe Averick,
February 11, 2011 6:16 PM

REPLY TO DOVID

TO DOVID: I essentially agree with you, my argument is a restating of R. Akiva's argument in a modern idiom. As far as your comments about the shortcomings of the "scientific" worldview, I address that issue quite clearly in my book. Don't forget, you are reading one small excerpt from one chapter. I deal with it extensively in several different places in the book.

(51)
Moshe Averick,
February 11, 2011 6:10 PM

reply to PETE

TO PETE: Pete, you state that I make an "argument from ignorance" and that "just because we don't know yet "exactly" how abiogensis [life from non-life] occured does not mean that [an] intelligent being is the cause without first providing evidence that this is the case."
Pete, you did not read my article carefully. Argument from Design: The existence of a suit is itself the proof of the existence of the tailor. The existence of the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" itself is the proof ot the existence of the poet. The existence of a bicycle is itself the proof of the existence of the mechanic who assembled it. No other evidence is necessary. There are levels of sophisitication, design and FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY that the human mind simply refuses to accept could have come about through any undirected process. How functionally complex? A smiley face made in the sand out of pebbles with the words "Hello Pete" made out of pebbles next to it is already way over the line. A suit, a poem by Tennyson and a living bacterium (exponentially more functionally complex) are all way over the line. No human being could accept that these could come about through any undirected process unless you have conclusive evidence to the contrary (good luck!) The burden of proof is on the atheist and agnostic, not me . The fact that there is zero evidence (see my book for seven pages of citations from atheistic/agnostic scientists to this effect) that abiogenesis can occur is the athesist's and agnostic's problem, not mine. The argument by atheists that life can come from non-life is not only made from ignorance, it is made from a leap of faith.
A simple prediction that makes my theory easily falsifiable: I predict that science will NEVER find a plausible, empirically demonstrable theory that a bacterium can emerge through a naturalistic process.
Pete The ball is now squarely in your court.

(50)
Paul,
February 11, 2011 5:49 PM

Your next position?

It is true that science does not yet know how life began. Please tell me Mr. Averick, what will you have to say if, or when science does? What will be your next religious fall-back position?

(49)
Simon,
February 11, 2011 4:51 PM

NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ANSWER

"How can mindless molecules, capable of only pushing and pulling their immediate neighbors, cooperate to form something as ingenious as a living organism? (Dr. Paul Davies)"
Easy.It happens over millions of years by natural selection.
Carrying the analogy to its logical conclusion: If you find yourself face to face with a living bacterium (which is at least as functionally complex as a 747), you can be absolutely certain it was not assembled by random forces "sweeping through" a bunch of chemicals. It was assembled in the same manner as a 747, namely, by an intelligent designer.
No. It started as something a lot simpler than a bacterium, and became more complex through natural selection, probably over millions of years. The relatively complex bacterium was not created in an instant by something like a tornado!
Of course we know this is ridiculous. An intelligent entity purposefully and consciously designed and built the calculator. Applying the same logic to a bacterium is more absurd, in light of the fact that a bacterium is extraordinarily more functionally complex than a calculator. Only a willful designer could produce a digitally controlled self-replicating molecular machine like a bacterium.
No. YOUR argument is ridiculous. A calculator is a non-organic, complex item that is clearly purposely designed for use by humans. We know of no way by which it could evolve from anything else without intelligent design. A bacterium is an organic organism, which we know can evolve from other organisms by natural selection.

(48)
Yserbius the Yekke,
February 11, 2011 4:24 PM

Both premesis are flawed

Both Rabbi Avericks and Professor Dawkins idea are flawed.
Dawkins seeks to prove that we know everything and anything about the world. In reality, evolution is one of the least understood science. In his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" he mocks those who keep looking for a "missing link" saying that it already has been found. No, Professor. It has not. Only a handful of prehistoric homonids have ever been found, so it's not so much a missing link as it is a missing chain.
On the other side, Rabbi Averick seeks to completely and absolutely disprove design by evolution, yet seems to meander and fail halfway through. Yes a complex machine cannot come into existence by itself. But a very very simple system can. And if billions of those system are in existence, then eventually one will come about that can reproduce. Once you have that all you need to add is a few billion years and poof! people.
But I digress. Yes, scientists have difficulty showing how things like the bats' sonar evolved. So what? Does that prove that there is a Ribono Shel Olam? Two hundred years ago, scientists had difficulty proving that lightning comes from charged electrons in the ionosphere, did we say then that because we don't understand lightning, there must be a Creator?
Next year, or the year after that, evolutionists will come up with a model that will explain the systems we currently have. Then this whole essay will be invalid. It is pointless and couterproductive to try to prove the existence of Hashem. There are some things that are best left to a tiny bit of emunah and bitachon .

(47)
Gary,
February 11, 2011 3:10 PM

IMPOSSIBLE or REASONABLE

So let’s get this straight.
First, in his response to Larry (Comment 41), Rabbi Averick says it’s unreasonable to accept that that someone materialised into the bank vault, shot the man, stuck the gun in the other man’s hand, and de-materialised out of the vault. But it’s the most reasonable possibility that a supernatural being created the universe. Where is the logic?
Second, describing scientists’ non-acceptance of a supernatural explanations as an ARTICLE OF FAITH shows a lack of understanding of science and faith. He accuses scientists of proceeding from an ASSUMPTION of a naturalistic cause for the origin of life. He is correct, but for some reason he thinks it is a bad thing. Scientists operate within the natural laws of the universe. They can only experiment within these laws. They can use these laws to make predictions, develop theories and then use the same laws to test and falsify these predictions and theories. This is not an ARTICLE OF FAITH as it is based on EVIDENCE. A concept lost on Rabbi Averick.
Scientists seek truth like anyone else. TESTING scientific theories and predictions is exactly what scientists do. If they do not stand up to testing and falsifying, other scientists are the first to shout about it.
So far, science has not found anything within these laws that leads us to think there is a creator so there is no need to look for one as an explanation for anything. This is precisely the same reason we do not construct experiments to check for the existence of fairies at the bottom of our garden, there just isn’t any need to because from what we know of the universe, it is UNREASONABLE to think they exist. It isn’t because of any bias Rabbi Averick perceives there to be.
I could go on but essentially, all this is, is an extremely verbose version of the argument from ignorance. Logically, it’s about as shaky as Pascal’s Wager, on top of a 500ft tower made from matchsticks, in the eye of a hurricane, during an earthquake.

(46)
Jon Jermey,
February 11, 2011 10:28 AM

We KNOW how humans come about -- and it ain't design!

Most of the responses here seem to have missed the obvious rebuttal: we KNOW how human beings come about. Remember those Sex Education classes? "When a man and a woman who love each other very much...' and so on. So when we encounter a new human being, we don't have to speculate on how he or she got here: we KNOW how he got here -- through the ordinary biological processes of fertilization, embyronic development, birth and growth. Unless the doctors or surgeons have been at him for his appendix or tonsils, he or she is clearly a product of natural processes that have nothing to do with design.
So let's go back to the suit. If you saw a suit plant in a field, and it had some suit buds on it, and a few weeks later they had grown into rompers, and a week or two later they were overalls, and after another week they were dress suits, and a week later they were turning into evening clothes and falling off the plant, would that lead you to think the suits were designed? No, because you can see they weren't designed they GREW. So the question is not 'who designed the suits' because we can see nobody designed them: it is 'what made the plant grow suits?'. And for real plants and real animals we have a perfectly adequate answer for that: evolution.
Mummy and daddy can't design a human being, but they can create one from the instructions. Evolution -- eventually -- provides the instructions through gradual improvements. Nobody 'designs' anything.

(45)
False Premise,
February 11, 2011 6:07 AM

The gaps are ever shrinking

The first paragraph contains a false premise. Averick may personally refuse to accept that bacteria came about through natural processes, but that doesn't make it any less true. It only amounts to a weak God of the Gaps argument.

(44)
Pete,
February 11, 2011 5:11 AM

Argument from Ignorance is flawed.

You just spent over two thousand words making an argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Just because we don't yet *exactly* know how abiogenesis occurred does not mean that a God or any other intelligent being supernatural or otherwise is the cause without first providing evidence that this is the case.

(43)
moshe averick,
February 10, 2011 5:13 PM

Part 2 of reply to Larry

TO LARRY: As I mentioned, atheistic and agnostic scientists have accepted as an ARTICLE OF FAITH that there MUST be a naturalisitc explanation for the origin of life. I devote an entire chapter in my book to documenting this simple fact but one citation here will suffice. This is atheistic physicist and veteran sceince writer Dr. Paul Davies: " I should like to say that the scientific attempt to explain the origin of life proceeds from the ASSUMPTION that whatever it was that happened was a natural process..no supernatural intervention. Scientists HAVE to start with that assumption."
I ask you a simple question Larry: WHY do scientists have to start with that ASSUMPTION. Does the fact they start with that ASSUMPTION mean that it is true. What if I start with an ASSUMPTION that God spoke at Mount Sinai, does that automatically make it true. Isn't the job of a scientist to TEST assumptions, rather than to MAKE assumptions? Isn't the job of scientists, along with all other human beings, to seek the TRUTH, not to make assumptions about what might have happened.
The simple fact is, Larry, that in this area scientists are not seeking the truth, nor are they interested in the truth. They are desperately trying to promote a scientific faith agenda. They have shut their minds off to any other possibility except the one that emotionally amd psychologically satisfies them.
I also cited another example of this abandonment of the search for truth - by Dr. Robert - in the article above. I urge you to read the entire section on the Origin of Life in my book for the complete picture.
Moshe Averick

(42)
moshe Averick,
February 10, 2011 5:01 PM

reply to LARRY

TO LARRY: Larry, you need to read chapter 2 of my book which delineates the philosophical framework and conceptual paradigms for discssing the existence of God.
You have completely misunderstood what Dr. Stuart Kauffman has proposed. Dr. Kauffman is the first to admit that he has no clue at all how life could have come about through some naturalistic process: "We do not, in fact, know how or where life started...none of the above theories are adequate" (from an article entitled "Beyond Reductionism, Reiventing the Sacred, S. Kauffman) Dr. Kauffman also stated -as I pointed out in the article - "Anyone who tells you they kinow how life started...is a fool or a knave." It seems odd to me that you are giving more credit to Stuart Kauffman than he gives himself.
The fact that someone can come up with "POSSIBLE" scenarios for some highly improbable occurence has no significance at all.
Allow me to illustrate: Two men walk into a sealed bank vault, a shot rings out, one man is dead of a gunshot wound, the other is holding a smoking gun. The defense attorney claims that it is POSSIBLE that someone materialized in the room, shot the man, stuck the gun in his clients hand, and de-materialized out of the room. Could anyone say that such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE? Of course, we don't care what is possible, we only care what is REASONABLE. I could give you many scenarios describing how it is POSSIBLE that Elvis is reallly still alive. So what? I do not have to consider every possibility, only REASONABLE possibilities. Stuart Kauffman understands very clearly that everything he presents is nothing more than speculation about what MIGHT have happened. What you don't realize is that he only does this because he has accepted as an ARTICLE OF FAITH that there is a naturalistic origin of life. He has a priori rejected any possibility of a creator, which is of course, the most reasonable possibility of all. please see part 2 of my reply to you.

(41)
Dovid,
February 10, 2011 4:41 PM

Why believe in G-d?

R' Averick, Is the reason you believe in G-d - and argue that others should believe in G-d - because of the irreducible complexity of the bacterium? Was there no good reason to believe in Him before? Was R' Akiva really thinking about the complexity of cells when he expressed the argument from design? If I may, I think perhaps your confidence in this argument, and its relevance to the scientific community, has perhaps obscured the proper perspective.
If the argument from design is of its own a good reason to believe in G-d it is not because of scientific discoveries of the last century. In my opinion, your best argument is that the scientific model of existence is much weaker than people think; just because they have been phenomenally successful at explaining so much, people assume they can explain everything when there are is a giant hole at the bottom. The system is based on something so ridiculously unlikely that an intelligent person ought to consider other avenues of explanation and consider whether they are in fact more probable. Bottom line: your presentation of the argument from design as a positive reason to believe in G-d overreaches. It should have been formulated as exposing the entire scientific approach for its giant act of faith in something virtually impossible. This may seem a subtle distinction but making a negative claim about science rather than a positive claim about G-d is the correct way to go. it would avoid much of the criticism in the comments here and would keep the correct approach to believing in G-d away from chemistry and on the Torah. After all, it does not say "I am the Lord your G-d who designed a complex bacterium."

(40)
Larry Smith,
February 10, 2011 6:10 AM

replies to SusanE and Rabbi Averick

I liked the story SusanE related (comment #25), about the Rabbi and the scale model of the solar system, because at first glance it seems so logical. But there is actually a very good response to the Rabbi. Physicists don’t just speculate that the earth and sun formed by themselves, they actually can mathematically model the formation processes. Stars and solar systems are formed from hydrogen and helium gas left over from the big bang and heavier elements created in the explosions of dying stars. If you start with those materials, and let them interact under the force of gravity, over a long period of time, stars form and grow hot and dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion, and the disk of material that orbits the star condenses into planets. These processes will not build a desk-sized scale model. The analogy doesn’t work.
Regarding Rabbi Averick’s response (#21) to my earlier letter (#8), my point is that the origin of life is something that lends itself to the scientific method, and does not need to rely on a creator. We understand the chemical basis of life and the chemical basis of evolution. Maybe we don’t know in detail how the first living single cell organism came into being, but at least we have theoretical models that show ways this might have happened (Stuart Kaufman). But we don’t need to rely on intelligent design.
If you want to understand the origins or nature of the universe, or of life, you need to study science. Belief in God does not require belief in “intelligent design”, and rejection of “intelligent design” does not have to mean rejection of God.

(39)
Joanne,
February 10, 2011 2:56 AM

Physics of the Divine by Zeeya Merali

In the March 2011 issue of DIscover magazine, "Some physicists see an intelligent hand at work in the odd logic of the quantum world." "If Divine action is hidden by design, can a cunning experiment bring it into view?" Discusses quantum theories of entanglement, and experiment results showing that "something outside of time is coordinating the photons' results."

(38)
Moshe,
February 9, 2011 8:10 PM

To Anonymous - he didn't misunderstand or misrepresent Dawkins

Comment #33 wrote: "its easy to throw Dawkins under the bus when you misunderstand his arguments...or just completely circumnavigate them...Most prominently, the idea that something's creator must be more complicated than that thing. Its a simple fact...If then man was designed by a god, then god must have been designed by something more complex..."
The problem here is that you equate G-d with the creation. But when we talk about G-d we are talking about the Creator of all physicality and the laws that govern it. G-d is not supernatural (in the sense of being a more perfect, sophisticated life form), He is meta natural (beyond and totally distinct and separate from the world that He created). As such, the laws that effect the physical world do not apply to Him. The One who creates the laws is not bound by them. If you are going to disagree with this point then you have to show why the Creator of the world and its laws would be bound by those laws.
In terms of the G-d of Avraham - you are right, the argument from design does not state anything about the will of G-d or His relationship to His creation. All that it does is demonstrate the existence of a intelligent creator. It's argument is that the natural order of the physical and biological world is too complex to have come about by blind, undirected natural forces.
This also relates to your first question - even if the creator would need another creator that doesn't negate the fact that what we observe requires a creator. Just like the inventor of a calculator requires a creator even though (s)he has parents.
What one can glean from the argument from design is a) the creator is far more sophisticated and capable then we currently are, b) has masterful control over the smallest of items (electrons, protons, etc.), the largest and most powerful of items (planets, stars, solar systems, etc) and everything inbetween and c) exhibits his design throughout the intelligible universe.
Pretty impressive!

(37)
Anonymous,
February 9, 2011 2:46 PM

Excellent Article - One Disagreement

Hi there,
I can understand for argument sake why you concede the theory of evolution, but I don't think that the problem of the complexity & development of life boils down solely to the origin of the first self-replicating cell. You still need a mechanism to modify that cell into more complex & sophisticated living organisms. Even an ordering process like natural selection doesn't explain the change in the biological code necessary to lead to new & varied forms of life (as Dr. Spetner discusses in Not By Chance).
The simplest cell has around 500,000 nucleotides - the human being 3 billion (1.5% of which code for proteins). That's almost 3 billion new bits of biological code or 4 million new bits of protein coding code - how did they develop?
The current theory, as popularly told, is through various forms of random mutations of that code. Such an explanation is difficult to accept given the complexity of the DNA code itself. Just like codes don't develop by chance, massive functioning & sophisticated changes and additions to that code don't happen by chance. If we have evidence otherwise I'm happy to hear it.
So it seems to me that evolution itself still needs a workable mechanism to be taken seriously as a theory. Natural selection is at best only half of the coin. Where is the other half? Where is the mechanism to create new & more sophisticated DNA?
As far as I understand - the theory of evolution still has not been able to establish or demonstrate a totally naturalistic process for that development (if you know of such evidence, please me know).
So why readily grant the point? If it's because it became politicized just note that it has become politicized & as such you are not addressing the point. But don't grant it, because it is the variety of life (i.e., the variety of the biological code known as DNA) as well as its existence that cries out that there is a Creator!

(36)
Moshe Averick,
February 9, 2011 6:31 AM

reply to Jay Kaplan

JAY, you asked "who created the creator", please re-read the second half of the article where I deal with this question. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL question, not a scientific one. You can contact me through my website.
All the best

(35)
Moshe Averick,
February 9, 2011 6:23 AM

continuation of reply to ANONYMOUS

TO ANONYMOUS: I will let the philosophers of science and the scientists quibble about the definition of life. There is no concensus on this issue and the disagreements are ferocious. The simplest living organism ever known to exist is a bacterium. There is zero evidence that any simpler living organism ever existed and there is zero evidence that such an organism could have resulted through an undirected, natural process. There is zero evidence that primed nucleotides could emerge through an undirected process and there is certainly zero evidence that a sef replicating RNA molecule could emerge through an undirected process. In fact all the evidence points clearly that the possibility of such an occurence is in the realm of absurdity. It is as likely that a bacterium emerged thru an undirected natural process as it is that a cellphone emerged through an undirected natural process. Please see my book for the clear evidence that atheistic/agnostic Origin of Life scientists are driven by a scientific faith agenda rather than the search for truth. I clearly document this in Chapter 4.
I welcome any other comments or questions you may have. If you would like to contact me personally, see the contact info on my website at www.RabbiMaverick.com Kol Tuv

(34)
Anonymous,
February 9, 2011 6:15 AM

Sigh...

Sure its easy to throw Dawkins under the bus when you misunderstand his arguments...or just completely circumnavigate them as done many times in this article. Most prominently, the idea that something's creator must be more complicated than that thing. Its a simple fact. Your calculator WAS designed by a man, which is more complicated than the calculator. If then man was designed by a god, then god must have been designed by something more complex...unless you claim that God does not need a designer, in which case you ignored your own argument AND made God an unnecessary factor in this equation. If you can say that God has always existed, then you can just as easily claim that the universe has always existed in some form. "God dunnit" is a weak and pathetic excuse for a line of reasoning unless you already believe in God. Most damning of all, however, is the fact that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING written here proves the abrahamic God. This is an argument for deism, not Judaism...and if you're going to call nature "god", you might as well save your breath. We already have a word for nature--its "nature". Calling it God only devalues nature and assuming (guessing) that god dunnit only inhibits scientific inquiry and promotes ignorance.

(33)
Moshe Averick,
February 9, 2011 6:14 AM

Reply to Anonymous

TO ANONYMOUS: Dr. Jack Szostak: " Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist...it is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines...could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter...The actual nature of the first organisms and the exact circumstances of the origin of life MAY BE FOREVER LOST TO SCIENCE... One of the most difficult and interesting mysteries surrounding the origin of life is exactly how the genetic material could have formed"
(The Origin of Life on Earth, Szostak and Ricard, Scientific American, Sep. 2009)
"Understanding how life emerged on Earth is one of the greatest challenges facing modern chemistry." (Dr. Jack Szostak)
Anonymous, you are simply misinformed. Dr. Szostak, along with other Origin of Life chemists such as Dr. Gerald Joyce and Dr. Tracey Lincoln of the Scripps Inst., have achieved remarkable results in synthetic chemistry. Dr. Joyce (who was a student of the late Leslie Orgel, one of the pioneers in Origin of Life research, particularly in the RNA-first theory, and Leslie Orgel himself worked closely with Francis Crick) and Dr. Lincoln have even created something of a self-replicating RNA molecule, albeit self-replicating only in the most limited sense of the concept. Of course, this is done in the LABORATORY under the most rigorous and exacting series of controlled procedures in a highly sophisticated MANUFACTURING PROCESS that resembles an auto assembly line, and having nothing at all to do with natural processes that might have taken place on the early earth. Dr. Robert Shapiro points out the obvious: "Unfortunately neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early earth to produce RNA." There is zero evidence that a self-replicating DNA molecule could have formed spontaneously on earth, the odds calculated by experts of such an event occuring are roughly 1 in 10 to the 1000th power.

(32)
anon,
February 8, 2011 5:46 PM

R' Avericks definition of OOL

Just for clarity, I'd like R' Averick's def of OOL: specifically, I'd think there has to be an explanation for how it got from zero to the earliest forms which we know (quite complex). Versus, for example, Prof Szostak at Harvard, who has proposed a very simplistic replicator (which, still not sure it's not based on many cascaded levels of conjecture/speculation), but would then be a "hand off" to darwin/theory of evolution to complete the rest of the journey to earliest life we know. Which points up what even Dobshanksy, and today PZ Myers appears to agree with that the distinction between TOE (when exaclty does chemical evolution become biological evo? probably no universal agreement) and OOL is more of a rhertorical argument than a valid distinction.

(31)
Bob Hensler,
February 8, 2011 5:37 PM

Makes clear the murk of idolistic Darwinism.

"God is not in the universe, the universe is in God!" ... I read this in Aish.com a while back. It's a life changer. and thank you for a great article. Clarifies so much.

(30)
Moshe Averick,
February 8, 2011 5:29 PM

My Reply to ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS ALSO WRITES: "Hence, while life as a function of random events is highly unlikely, given the chances that infinity offers it will happen."
Anonymous is referring to the "multiverse theory", the idea that there are gazillions and gazillions of parallel universes to our own, and therefore even if the Origin of Life is an outrageously improbable event, in a gazilion gazillion universes it will happen at least once. If that line of reasoning is true then it is also certain that an IPHONE will happen by chance at least once, that an F-15 fighter bomber will happen by chance at least once, that a Space Shuttle will happen by chance at least once, that the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" will happen by chance at least once. Is there anybody who has the slightest grip on their sanity that would ever contemplate such possibilities?! Would Richard Dawkins stand up in front of an audience with an IPHONE in his hand and actually tell them that it is the result of a random series of occurences that could have happened at least once in our "multiverse" reality. The simplest bacterium is exponentially more functionally complex than an IPHONE; the notion that it could be the result of an undirected series of events is preposterous. Richard Dawkins doesn't believe such an argument , Hitchens doesn't believe it and Stephen Hawking doesn't believe it either. It is just another atheistic propaganda smokescreen to avoid confronting the reality of a Creator. The fact that an intelligent human being could actually put forth such a foolish argument is the greatest indication that atheist idealogues are driven by desire and "faith", not reason or logic. As I indicated by the title of my book from whence the Aish.com excerpt was taken, atheistic ideology is "Nonsense of a High Order."

(29)
Moshe Averick,
February 8, 2011 5:10 PM

More replies to comments on my article

To Dovid Benjamin: Shalom Aleichem, how nice to hear from you. Bsorot Tovot! I remember you very well and I also remember meeting you at Ohr Sameach in Monsey. Kol Tuv,
TO ANONYMOUS: "For Dawkins' very plausible explanation of the Origin of Life, just read Chapter 2..of The Selfish Gene."
You have made the same mistake that most people make when they read what Dawkins writes about Origin of Life. They confuse a PURELY SPECULATVE scenario about how the first self replicating molecule MIGHT have come into existence, with the actual state of Origin of LIfe research. As Dawkins himself writes in The God Delusion: "But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is- very, very improbable...The origin of life is a flourishing IF SPECULATIVE subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine." If you want to really understand what is the scientific value of Dawkins' speculative musings about the origin of the first self-replicating molecule (there is zero evidence that there ever was such a thing in a natural state) and the Origin of Life in general, here is what Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NY University and world recognized expert in Origin of Life research had to say about Dawkins: " Dawkins wrote a wonderful book BUT THE PLACE WHERE HE ABSOLUTELY BLEW IT WAS IN A SECTION ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE...HE HAS NO OTHER RECOURSE - HE'S NOT A CHEMIST - THAN TO INVOKE SOME IMPROBABLE EVENT..SO HIS SCHOOLBOY HOWLER IS THE SECTION ON ORIGIN OF LIFE." Need I say more? (DR. Shapiro is a self declared agnostic and a self declared opponent of Intelligent Design theory)

(28)
Anonymous,
February 8, 2011 6:49 AM

Not quite...

For Dawkins' very plausible explanation of the origin of life, just read Chapter 2 (The Replicators) of his seminal book the Selfish Gene. Seems to me like a n'shama was born in the primordial soup, and the rest, as they say, is (evolutionary) history.

(27)
J.D.,
February 8, 2011 12:57 AM

a few comments

Re: Bruce: "Undoubtedly there is a tailor" - this already is a profound statement. If you want to know more about the Tailor i would say history has given us some evidence. The continued existence of the Jews despite all odds and efforts to eradicate them, their disproportionate influence in all world affairs in all eras of time, the unlikely relevance and unparalleled popularity of their ancient Book in the world even to this day, their return to their homeland after defeat and exile and dispersion after the passing of 20 centuries - an event unlike any other in history - all so improbable yet clearly written in the Torah, are significant evidence regarding pointing to who that Tailor may be. At least i think so.
Re: Jay Caplan, It is my understanding that space/time are intertwined, and evidence shows there was a starting point to them. Whatever the primary cause is, exists unaffected by space/time, 'predating' space/time in order to have created it, so beginning and end cannot apply to said Creator. We can never really wrap our brains around this, having no experience outside space/time.
Finally I think it is important to realize when contemplating the origin of life, you can never reach a point where there was absolutely nothing. If so, nothing could ever come out of it. It's like trying to come out with a positive integer working with only zeroes. It's not possible. So, whatever exists independent of space/time is either an intelligent Cause or just more matter that had to come from somewhere. If you choose the latter you end up in a vicious cycle. The high level of complexity in the world points to intelligence and intention. Our experience in the world should teach us that things don't get built up without intelligence and intention, they fall apart without them. Yes or no? You decide...

(26)
Anonymous,
February 7, 2011 9:48 PM

Your argument missed for forest ...

I am a frum Jew but find that your arguments while locally persuasive, miss the basic source of conflict between people of faith and those without. There is a confluence of opinion between atheists and theists. Both accept the eternity of being, either in the form eternal randomness of existence or in the form of an eternal, thoughtful, deity who at some timeless point (does point even make sense?) created what we now experience. The atheists say that in an infinte universe or hodgepodge of multiverses, if something is probable, it will be manifest. Hence, while life as a function of random events is highly unlikely, given the chances that infinity offers, it will happen. Hence, there is no need for a thoughful creator. While the failthful find comfort in the certainty of a creator, that faith remains an extrarational experience.

(25)
SusanE,
February 7, 2011 9:27 PM

An Example. I liked this story.

A man with the Big Bang Theory of how the world came to be, visited a Rabbi to talk and they couldn't agree on anything. Man said our universe evolved and the earth and sun just formed themselves. The Rabbi invited the man back for another talk. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the man returned for his visit, there, on the Rabbis' desk was a scale model of our Universe. The planets were revolving around a sun and the moon was revolving around the Earth, and there showed a night and day on the Earth, and Earth rotated on it's axis........ all in all a perfect working model of our solar system. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When the Man saw it he asked the Rabbi, "Wow who made that? It's beautiful and it works so perfectly and it is such a delicate balance. Who made this beautiful model? ~~~~~~~~ The Rabbi said" No one made it. It simply all came together and began working on it's own here on my desk top last week, out of nowhere. Isn't it lovely?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The man then said "Well, Someone had to make it! It couldn't just come here out of nothing". The Rabbi said, That is my point exactly.......... If this beautiful model of our Earth needed a Creator , so too did our much more complex Earth.

(24)
Sneeral,
February 7, 2011 8:55 PM

Preposterous

For the sake of brevity, I shall skip over the mental gymnastics the Rabbi asks his readers to engage in and simply raise one point. He states that Darwin begs the question and then asks - amazingly - how did the first cell come into being? Was that truly done with a straight face? Because it has seemed to me since I was a very young boy that endowing "God" with omni-everything qualities sort of begs the question of God's creation/existence.
I'd be remiss if I didn't at least mention the fact that many doctors and biologists have also pointed out that if the human body was "designed" from scratch, then the designer was not, actually, very intelligent; as there are numerous faults and inefficiencies on how we are put together. The intricate and amazing eye is most often cited as a prime example of that.

(23)
Anonymous,
February 7, 2011 5:56 PM

Best regards to Moshe Averick.

It's your "fault" I am observant today. It all started because of you back in Toronto some 28 years ago.
dovid benjamin

(22)
Moshe Averick,
February 7, 2011 5:45 PM

More replies to objections to my article

To LEO SARIN: "This doesn't justify al the commandments and miracles." My article and book are not about the commandments and miracles in the Torah, the only subject dealt with is the existence of God, the soul, and spirituality.
To DAVID WAXMAN: "I side with biologist Ken Miller."
David, Keneth Miller, a biologist, is just as clueless as all the expert chemists in the field as to the Origin of Life: "However, the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the Origin of Life itself." (Dr. Kenneth Miller, from "Evolution: The Next 200 Years" New Scientist, 1/28/09)
" This is the God of the gaps fallacy and it makes me cringe" - The "god of the gaps" mantra is an atheistic propoganda ploy to deflect a confrontation with a very simple reality and truth: Science has no clue whatsoever how life began. Since the famous Stanley Miller experiment in the 50's , Science has not come closer to an answer, it has moved EXPONENTIALLY FARTHER from an answer as the understanding of the cell and genetic information deepens. DR. Klaus Dose: " Experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical an dmolecular evolution have led to a better perception of THE IMMENSITY OF THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH RATHER THAN TO ITS SOLUTION. At present, all discussion on principal theories and esxperimets in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
Mr. Waxman: A "gap" implies a solid wall with a few openings here and there that have to be filled it. Origin of Life is not a "gap" it is WIDE OPEN SPACES from sea to shining sea. I urge you to read my book or do the research yourself into the state of Origin of Life research. You will see that everything I have written is the simple truth. I wish you sucess in your search for truth, but I caution you, don't take my word for it and certainly do not take Kenneth Miller's word for it. Do the hard work and research for yourself!

(21)
Moshe Averick,
February 7, 2011 5:30 PM

More replies to objections to my article

To BRUCE: Every single piece of material matter in the universe, whether it is a baseball, an Abrams tank, or a bacterial cell are subject to the exact same laws of physics. You are simply wrong when you state that bacterial cells are subject to different forces than a 747.
To LARRY SMITH PHD: "Science can explain the Origin of Life....without postulating a creator"
Larry, which scientists are you talking about? Certainly not Dr. STanley Miller or Dr. Leslie Orgel, both brilliant Origin of Life chemists: "It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began"
Certainly not distinguished physicist and information theorist DR. H.P. Yockey: " A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis if fact AND NOT FAITH HAS NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN.
Certainly not Dr. Harold P. Klein: " The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened."
I could go on and on. In my book in chapter 5, I have literally 7 pages of these types of statements. If you think that Scientists understand the Origin of Life you are either grossly misinformed or you are deceiving yourself.
To AUSTIN KADER: "Obviously the writer supporting creation is cluesless about biology and evolution."
Mr. Kader, I refer you to what I wrote above to Dr. Smith. Secondly, If you would read what I wrote in the article you would see that Darwinian Evolution is completely irrelevant to the question of a Creator, I even CONCEDED the truth of Darwinian EVolution and you are still left with the exact same question.
Thirdly, please forgive me, but you are the one who seems to be clueless. The scientific discipline that is essential for Origin of Life research is ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, not biology. Richard Dawkins "The expertise required for it is CHEMISTRY and it is not mine." Seek the truth, don't make proclamations.

(20)
Rabbi Aryeh Moshen,
February 7, 2011 5:18 PM

One very minor suggestion

I would have sub-titled this article, "What Our Father Abraham Saw"

(19)
Moshe Averick,
February 7, 2011 5:14 PM

Reply to objecytions to my article

A brief reply to some objections raised in the comments:
To BRUCE: "no logical connection between origin of life and mechanical device" This is simply not true. Here is atheist physicist Dr. Paul Davies: "Scientists have fabricated invisible cogwheels, motors thesize of a pinhead and electrical switches as tiny as individual molecules...the burgeoning field of nanotechnology - building structures and devices and measured on a scale of billionths of a meter promised to revolutionize our lives...but nature got there first. The world is already full of nanomachines: they are called living cells. Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come straight from an engineer's manual. MINISCULE TWEEZERS, SCISSORS, PUMPS, MOTORS, LEVERS, VALVES, PIPES, CHAINS, AND EVEN VEHICLES ABOUND. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning...elaborate factory production line...with a fine tuning and complexity as yet unmatched by any human engineering."
Agnostic Australian Microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton: "Although bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery....far more complicated than any machinery built by man...we see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks..elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components..."
Dr. George Whitesides, the Harvard chemist who has the highest Hirsch-index rating of any living chemist (if you dont know what that is look it up) " The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science..Most chemists believe as I do, that lfe emerged spontaneiously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic earth. How? I HAVE NO IDEA...ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE CHEMISTRY I KNOW, IT SEEMS ASTONISHINGLY IMPROBABLE."
Argue with them, not me.

(18)
Richard Warshell,
February 7, 2011 5:50 AM

religion through induction and deduction

I think one can come to the reality of a creator either through induction and/or reduction. Abraham looked at the world and "reduced" a creator. Today, by analyzing Jewish history one can "induce" a creator.

(17)
Edward,
February 7, 2011 2:34 AM

#1 missed the point

Umm.. I don't think the Rabbi was trying to reconcile anything. The Rabbi was attempting to prove the fact that there is a creator, and not through science but logic. He wasn't trying to show that the bible agrees with evolution and show how the six days of creation fits with modern day science. He was only trying to show that the world has a creator through the oldest argument in the book. Dr. Blumnethal you missed the whole article.

(16)
Bruce,
February 7, 2011 2:06 AM

Illogical Conclusions

Dear Rabbi Averick,
Your article was well-written, but your conclusions are faulty. FIrst of all, there is no logical comparison between the origin of life and the assembly of a mechanical device. There are forces in nature which influence the interaction of atoms and molecules, such as electromagnetism, internuclear forces and gravity, which do not influence the development of a mechanical device. The fact that a 747 does not somehow get assembled by chance or by a storm has nothing to do with life. Forces in nature change the odds. Your postulation that a cell is so fantastically complex that it "must have been created" is a non-sequitor. It's true that it is complex, but not true that it "must have been created." Your conclusion would make more sense if you said, "A cell is so complex that we do not yet understand how it developed." Don't forget that it's fantastically complex only to our current level of understanding and technology. All throughout human history, many things in the world have seemed fantastically complex and way beyond our understanding, until science discovered its secrets. Go back into the past: at one time, man was just as bewildered by solar eclipses, infectious disease, epilepsy, and the like. Now we understand them. You can be sure that some time in the past, some "smart" person claimed that those things were proof of the existence of God or gods.
Your more profound question, really the ultimate question of mankind, is where everything in the universe comes from. What really was the "big bang," and was that really the beginning of everything, or was it just one of many big bangs, many universes, and many dimensions? The only logical answer is that we don't know. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. In addition, there is so much in the Bible that is inaccurate and non-sensical that the concept of an all-knowing and omnipotent god is preposterous. Just look at the story of Adam and Eve. It's absurd.

(15)
ruth housman,
February 7, 2011 1:06 AM

the hidden face of G_d

I do deeply believe that G_d is laughing. I see, all these differing belief systems as actually part of a massive intelligence that is causing us all to think, and to think, deeply, about this issue.
For me, it's a no brainer, because my life has taken me in a direction that is total Proof, and actually I believe I already have this, on paper, by way of a life of massive astonishment of connects through story, and that any examination of this would leave behind in the dust, the notion of random, and a universe that is devoid of a Prime Mover. I can say, categorically that my life is not random and I can prove this.
I can also say that within words there is a key to this entire story that involves all of our lives, and that key, is going to take in all creativity and will bring us all, Home.
Life is a series of mirroring metaphoric connects, perhaps an old notion, but one that is very visible to me. I could say, life is a door, life is adore, and that this entire story, is about LOVE.
I have been writing extensive commentary on line about the letters, the Hebrew letters, and in taking a profound walk across Babel I am doing something truly remarkable with this alchemic clay we all use, called WORDS.
I can say, God wrote us all into a story, and that story is remarkably beautiful.
DNA, the stuff of life is a language. Any biologist will tell you this. God is speaking loud and clear, and in the very words we speak is coded a story that I am saying will take us all home. I am doing it with letters, about the letters themselves.
And I am saying this is received knowledge and that we are all of us entering a new state of consciousness.

(14)
Anonymous,
February 7, 2011 12:25 AM

Re Blumenthal's comment

@Blumenthal: I think you misunderstand Rabbi Averick's point. You say "I respect what ... is attempting to accomplish," but I think your disagreement only stems from this misunderstanding. His point is, that scientist have every right to engage in inductive reasoning -- as long as they recognize that it has a limited scope. Science is not a means to understand everything. The mistake of all the quoted scientists is that they want to explain scientifically things that have no scientific explanation.
As Shapiro said, "... and we can resolve it only by introducing supernatural forces. We must look for another solution if we wish to remain within science."
That is the issue. Why can't scientists accept that not everything is within science's scope?
The obvious answer is that they are desperate for an explanation that is convenient, not obligating.

(13)
Anonymous,
February 6, 2011 11:52 PM

Please do not talk about Rambam like that

Dr, Blumenthal, you say that you feel that Rambam got Aristotle wrong. Do you realize (and you should, if you are, as you say, "an observant Jew") that one who says that our holy rabbis (especially those that lived as long ago and did as much research--in both Judaism and non-Jewish philolsophy as Rambam did) made mistakes should first realize that HE may be understanding the rabbis wrong? Be careful in talking about one of the greatest sages in history in such a manner!

(12)
haim tabachnik,
February 6, 2011 9:37 PM

Mark Gary, Only a "fool," a "knave" could make such an outrageous claim!!!

i'm sorry... but you FIT the title... no, not the md title... but the one in my headline... did you even READ the article??? "no chemist, physicist, biologist, nor any other type of scientist has any real CLUE how life could have come about through "natural processes" " what "reconciliation" do u c here??? he PROVED that they're exactly what i called YOU... so PLEASE... WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.............. :/

(11)
Yoni,
February 6, 2011 9:22 PM

(A) and (B) are two sides of the same coin

Let's say that life arose "naturally". How did it happen? By the laws of physics and chemistry, which - again - imply design. The very fact that our universe has the capability to transform hot quark soup into thinking human beings, implies design.
So a "naturalistic explanation", really, is nothing more than another "design-based explanation" in disguise. Indeed, in many cases, the real naturalistic explanation is far more awe-inspiring and miraculous than any alternative. Not surprising, when we realize that hitting the real "naturalisitic" explanation is synonamous to getting a glimpse of G-d's work.
To summarize:
I find it really strange, that atheists are using naturalistic explanation to "refute" the existence of a Grand Designer. I find it equally strange, when believers adopt the "God-of-the-Gaps" tactic and assign the Creator only to things we don't (yet)understand.
And to both sides of the argument, I offer the following simple observation: Take a good close look at the (natural) miracle of childbirth. A cell packed with chemicals comes in, and a baby comes out. Surely you can see the hand of G-d in this incredible natural process?

i never read a better article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! brilliantttttttttttt........... :))

(9)
Jay Caplan,
February 6, 2011 8:36 PM

Was god created?

If the existence of something necessarily points to the existence of its maker, then, if god exists because we exist, the natural follow-up question is who or what created the creator?

(8)
Larry Smith, Ph.D.,
February 6, 2011 7:52 PM

This is the reason I stopped being a supporter of Aish.

Science can explain the origin of life and its development into increasingly complex forms without postulating a creator, just as it can to explain the origin and composition of our universe. Articles like this is the reason I stopped being a supporter of Aish. .

(7)
Austin Kuder,
February 6, 2011 7:29 PM

A Suit is not an organism

Obviously the writer supporting creation is clueless about biology and evolution and the history of the universe.

(6)
Leo Sarini,
February 6, 2011 5:47 PM

NOT ENOUGH

The comment about the suit and taylor sounds too childish, as many other comments. Undoubtely, there is a tailor; the problem is as of today, WE ARE NOT SURE WHO WAS THE TAILOR O THE TAILORS. As many other topics, we justify what we can not understand as THE "TAILOR" WORK. This doesnt justify, either, all the commandments, miracles, that are hard to proof. What it seems here and in other comments, a very relentless pursuit to justify what can not be justified, that THE TAILOR is only in the believers mind, nothing else. As always, I am not waiting an answer, as you guys only answer what is convenient for you.

(5)
Moshe Averick,
February 6, 2011 5:46 PM

respectfully disagree with Dr. Blumenthal

Please forgive me Doctor, but you have made a statement of faith, not reason or logic. If you happened upon a smiley face in the sand made out of pebbles with a message in pebbles next to it reading "Good morning Doctor" you would obviously conclude that it was the result of an intelligent conscious act by an intelligent conscious being. You would not sit back and contemplate whether or not you are entering into mysterious, unknowable realms of human inquiry and knowledge.
The simplest bacterium is more functionally complex than an F-15 fighter bomber. It came from SOMEWHERE. The obvious conclusion is that it was created by an intelligent creator. As I pointed out in my book, the only possible creator must be outside of nature. The other possibility - a naturalistic process beginning with life and ending with non-life - is a solution for which there exists zero evidence. This is a simple scientific fact that all Origin of Life researchers admit to. There are no other solutions to the Origin of Life. It is either an act of creation by a supernatural creator (God) or it is a lucky fluke. I have simply chosen the obvious answer. If you disagree, that is fine, but please show me where my logic is flawed.
Kol Tuv, chodesh tov, Moshe Averick

(4)
meyerhoff henry,
February 6, 2011 5:08 PM

science versus religion

Science has a theory when and how the universe began (BIG BANG THEORY) but not an answer to why it happened. For that religion provides an answer to those who request it and then calls for certain practices with a view to imposing a moral order on humanity.Fear of the unknown is the basis of religion, investigating the unknown is the purpose of science, which has lead to conflict. There is no room for arrogance for either party.

(3)
SD,
February 6, 2011 4:50 PM

If only..

In response to the Doctor. The general public tends to utilize scientific proof to be incorporated in the way they live their lives. Nobody wants be restricted to belief systems, hence if there is any way that can be avoided they will find it. It is therefore logical to conclude (as is the opinion of the majority of Jewish theologians) that there cannot be a dual value system. That is the simple translation of Maimonides opening line in the 13 principles of faith, "I believe with, and here is the key word, "complete" belief". There is no room for any other belief system no matter which way you slice it. We cannot live with double standards be it at work or anywhere else.

(2)
David Waxman,
February 6, 2011 4:10 PM

Intelligent design is bad for the Jews

Rav Moshe, Shalom!
I agree with 95% of what you write, and disagree with 100% of it. We make a tragic mistake when we attempt to pin down our emunah on the watch maker analogy or any variation thereof. This is the God of the gaps fallacy and it makes me cringe. I side with biologist Ken Miller who fervently opposes intelligent design in the classroom, and the most important reason is that I don't want to be forced to choose between God and science. I want them both.
Dr. Blumenthal - well said!

(1)
Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH,
February 6, 2011 2:15 PM

I disagree with Rav Moshe

I am both an observant Jew and a medical scientist. However, I make no attempt to reconcile religion and science. I hold one viewpoint in each hand, and accept them as two equally true viewpoints, each in its own domain. For ultimate truths about the universe and how best to live in it, I rely on Judaism, the ‘esoteric’ domain, as it were. For empirical knowledge of this concrete world, I rely upon science and the scientific method, the ‘exoteric’ domain. By the rules of philosophical logic, articulated magnificently by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his works Metaphysics and Physics, religion relies on DEDUCTIVE reasoning, beginning with the First Principle, i.e. God, and derives all other principles by deduction. Thus, religion begins and ends with ‘Ultimate Truth’. Scientific method relies on INDUCTIVE reasoning, beginning with data collection, data analysis, theory generation, and theory testing using statistical methods. Unlike religion, science cannot arrive at ‘Ultimate Truth’, but that is not its appropriate goal. I respect what the Rabbi Moshe Averick is attempting to accomplish, but I consider his rationale inadequate for any serious philosopher of science or religion.
Scientific reductionism AND religious reductionism attempt to anthropomorphize God and the physical cosmos and thus undermine the essential mystery of each.
Rabbi Moshe Averick is not the first to attempt such reconciliation, nor will he be the last. The Rambam attempted do the same after reading Aristotle in Arabic.
IMHO, Maimonides got Judaism right, but he got Aristotle wrong.
Rabbi Moshe Averick’s article’s represents a way to find peace and comfort by reconciling an irreconcilable dialectic and thus achieving ‘certainty’.
I prefer to find peace and comfort by accepting the inherent mystery within the two worldviews.

I’ve been dating a young woman for the past two years and we are starting to think about marriage. The problem is that she is not Jewish. I would want her to convert, but in a way where there would be no doubt about its validity, so that we and our kids don’t have problems later on. How do you recommend that I proceed?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

I appreciate your desire to do the right thing and proceed in an authentic way.

The process of conversion is challenging and involves a process of a year or two. This benefits the person converting, to ensure he fully appreciates the responsibilities he is taking on.

According to the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch), a valid conversion replicates the experience at Mount Sinai of 3,300 years ago, when the Jewish nation accepted the Torah. For your friend to convert, she must:

believe that Judaism is the true religion, not just accept it by default

study what it says in the Torah

commit to observe all the Torah's commandments

Further, a conversion must be motivated for the sincere purpose of getting close to God and His Torah, not for ulterior motives. Thus, your friend would have to embrace Judaism and the Torah for its own sake, not in order to marry you. She should have the exact same desire to convert even with you entirely out of the picture.

If your friend studies Judaism and feels it is right for her, she would then approach an Orthodox conversion court and explain her situation. The court would then decide if it feels she is a sincere candidate for conversion. If yes, she would begin the lengthy process of studying and practicing to become a true convert.

Of course, to have a successful relationship, you will also need a high level of appreciation and commitment to Judaism. Perhaps you could begin your own study program to discover how Torah values enhance our lives and form the bedrock of civilization.

You should endeavor to live near a Jewish community which has adult education programs, rabbis you can consult with, Shabbat hospitality programs, etc.

In 1273 BCE (Jewish year 2488), Moses completed his farewell address to the Jewish people, and God informed Moses that the day of his death was approaching (Deut. 31:14). Amazingly, the anniversary of Moses' completing his teaching coincides with the date in 1482 of the first printing of the standard format used for Jewish Bibles today: vowel signs, accents, translation (Targum), and Rashi commentary.

Lack of gratitude is at the root of discontent. In order to be consistently serene, we must master the attribute of being grateful to the Creator for all His gifts. As the Torah (Deuteronomy 26:11) states, "Rejoice with all the good the Almighty has given you." This does not negate our wanting more. But it does mean that we have a constant feeling of gratitude since as long as we are alive, we always have a list of things for which to be grateful.

[Solomon] was wiser than all men (I Kings 5:11), even wiser than fools (Midrash).

What does the Midrash mean by "wiser than fools"?

A man of means was once a Sabbath guest at the home of the Chofetz Chaim. He insisted upon paying the sage in advance for the Sabbath meals - an insulting demand. To everyone's surprise, the Chofetz Chaim accepted the money.

After the Sabbath the Chofetz Chaim forced the guest to take the money back. He explained, "Had I refused to accept the money before the Sabbath, the thought that he was imposing upon me might have distracted from the man's enjoying the spirit of the Sabbath. Although it was foolish of him to feel this way, I wished to put his mind at rest."

Not everyone thinks wisely all the time. Some people have foolish ideas. Yet if we oppose them, they may feel they have been wronged. Insisting on the logic of our own thinking may not convince them in the least. In such instances, it may require great wisdom to avoid offending someone, yet not submitting to his folly.

By accepting his guest's money, knowing that he would return it to him after the Sabbath, the Chofetz Chaim wisely accommodated this man's whim without compromising on his own principles.

A wise person may be convinced by a logical argument, but outsmarting a fool truly requires genius.

Today I shall...

try to avoid offending people whom I feel to be in the wrong, without in any way compromising myself.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...